Off with the rent

Australian Law Reform Commission, in tight budget squeeze, has to stump-up for two lots of office rent ... Why is this necessary? ... Gummow has a hissy-fit as he refuses to finish his question to Doc. Bell in ASIC v Hellicar appeal 

Wilkins: collaborative discussionsPoor Terry Flew from the Australian Law Reform Commission flew solo when he appeared last month before Soapy and the other senators for October's gruesome estimates experience. 

Flew is the professor recruited to the ALRC to review the national classification scheme.  

The ALRC has been in the sights of the bow-tied head of the AG's Department, Roger Wilkins, who has been angling to absorb its functions within his departmental empire. 

The commission had to fight for its life before an inquiry that Wilko created to investigate just what the ALRC was doing and for how much. 

The law reformers seem to have survived, more or less intact, but as Wilko told the senators:  

"I think the gravamen is we probably have not accepted the outcome of the inquiry."

"Collaborative discussions" about money are ongoing. 

Budget cuts have been implemented and economies have been scratched together to keep the show afloat. 

The library had to burn its books and go digital. Prof Flew's own salary as only one of two full-time ALRC commissioners has to be met directly from the department, and the commission had to vacate it's luxurious office space in King Street Sydney and muck in with the Australian Government Solicitor's digs in Martin Place's MLC Centre. 

This is where the problem lies. 

Wilko revealed to the estimates committee that the rental for the King Street premises is $602,000 a year and that the lease doesn't expire till September 2012. 

The rent paid to the AGS is $285,293 a year. 

Because the ALRC hasn't been able to find a sub-tenant for King Street it means it is forking out over $885,000 a year in rent, which is 26 percent of the outfit's entire revenue of $3.4 million (2009-2010). 

Most of their rental outgoings are being lavished on acres of empty space. 

Why wasn't the ALRC allowed to stay put until the King Street lease ran out towards the end of next year before it had to doss down with the AGS across the road? 

There would have been a saving of nearly $300,000 for the year, enough to keep the library going full blast, hire some more researchers or an additional commissioner. 

*   *   *

Bell: managed to do "something" to Gummow no other counsel had done in 17 yearsWhat do you make of this little exchange in the High Court on day two of ASIC v Hellicar (and other James Hardie catastrophes)? 

In ASIC's appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal decision Doc. Andrew Bell SC appeared for Gregory Terry, a director of James Hardie Industries Ltd from February 17, 2000 to May 28, 2001. 

Terry was one of the directors banned by Justice Ian Gzell from managing a corporation for five years and fined $30,000. 

As to the following Pauline might ask, "please explain"? 

Gummow J: Before you come to that, there was an appeal, was there not, by your client against the stay application dismissal?

Doc. Bell: Yes, which was dealt with – and is dealt with in the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Gummow: Looking at paragraph [663] of the Court of Appeal.

Bell: Yes, your Honour.

Gummow: What do we then make of the Court of Appeal’s repetition in [664] of evidence that was tendered only on that aspect of the litigation?

Bell: This is a question which, I think, Justice Bell was about to take the Solicitor to yesterday and the Solicitor said it would not be appropriate to do that. There might be a question about that. But, your Honour, I can refer to it for illustrative purposes. You will see, for example, that one of the matters in [664] is that Mr Robb’s belief was that he obtained a copy of the draft news release on 16 February. Now, ASIC asked the court at first instance, knowing that was Mr Robb’s belief, asked the court to conclude that he got it at the meeting – the beginning of the meeting. This illustrates the sort of problem - - -

Gummow: He also seems to have said that he had 'few recollections' and did not recall - et cetera, the February meeting. So why do we assume that there was this - - -

Bell: Well, your Honour, we do not know what the recollections were - - -

Gummow: Just a minute, Mr Bell.

French CJ: Just let Justice Gummow finish his question.

Gummow: No, I am not going to finish the question.

Bell: Sorry, I thought you had. We do not know what the recollections were but he was willing to discuss those with ASIC. He was not willing to discuss those with us. The fact that he did not have or may have had few recollections would be – may itself be significant if the court were to find that one would expect him to have recollections. This was a pretty major matter of public interest and public importance.

Gummow: You managed to do something, Mr Bell, which no other counsel has done to me in 17 years on this court, but I will not say any more and I do not think it is funny.

Bell: I do not know what your Honour is referring to, sir - I am just trying genuinely to answer your Honour’s questions. Now, the point is, there was a witness who ASIC should have, as a public interest body, no interest in securing findings of contravention and disqualifications on the basis of an imperfect record, no interest, whatsoever, and really - - - 

Don't you just love the occasional weird judicial brain snap? 

Comments

[John Carroll]

And see [2011] HCATrans 285 for HH's remarks on the Family Court's occasional flight of fancy when assigning pseudonyms to litigants in that jurisdiction.