FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, books, theses

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 32 | 33 ||

«Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Seventeen Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society Greenmount Beach Resort, ...»

-- [ Page 34 ] --

Since the main defence against t e r r o r i s m is good intelligence, t h e p r e s e n t situation requires that sufficient powers be given to our intelligence agencies to make their work effective, but this should entail the least possible interference with ordinary rights and liberties. The powers that have been given to ASIO, to detain for questioning persons believed to be able to a s s i s t the collection of i n t e l l i g e n c e i m p o r t a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o a t e r r o r i s m o f f e n c e, a r e d r a s t i c. However, they are hedged round with safeguards, including t h e n e e d f o r a w a r r a n t b y a judge or magistrate, and the requirement that the questioning be conducted in the presence of a prescribed a u t h o r i t y, who is usually a r e t i r e d judge. Only experience will show whether these s a f e g u a r d s are sufficient. In one respect, however, the provisions go too far. They forbid lawyers and some other persons from c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n relating to questioning or detention. The object of these provisions is clear enough, but t h e r e s u l t would be to prevent p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t a n a b u s e o f p o w e r or a s e r i o u s e r r o r o f j u d g m e n t had occurred.

More controversial is the United S t a t e s ’ expedient of detaining over 600 persons of various nationalities, including two Australians, at Guantanamo Bay in C u b a f o r a n i n d e f i n i t e period, during which they have been kept v i r t u a l l y incommunicado and a r e s u b j e c t t o questioning, and during which the United S t a t e s Government h a s contended t h a t they have no r i g h t of access to t h e ordinary courts. It is said that the detainees will either be released, when they are no longer of law enforcement, intelligence or security interest, or will be tried before a military commission. The legal justification claimed for holding them in this way appears to be that they are unlawful enemy combatants.

Of course, ordinarily enemy combatants captured in battle are entitled to be t r e a t e d a s prisoners of war, which means t h a t they are to be t r e a t e d humanely, and cannot be subject to interrogation, and that the circumstances in which they may be t r i e d and punished are s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d by i n t e r n a t i o n a l conventions. The detainees are obviously not being treated a s prisoners of w a r.

On the other hand, not all enemy c o m b a t a n t s are entitled to the protection a f f o r d e d t o prisoners of war. Certainly a spy or saboteur in civilian clothes would not be protected. Indeed, to obtain protection under the Geneva Conventions, military personnel must be identified by a uniform, or, in the case o f m i l i t i a o r v o l u n t e e r s, b y a f i x e d d i s t i n c t i v e s i g n recognisable a t a d i s t a n c e.

Also, a soldier in uniform who has broken the laws of war, e.g., has committed a w a r c r i m e, i s not protected. Unprivileged belligerents of these kinds would be subject to trial by a military tribunal.

We simply do not know, because the Government of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s not disclosed, w h a t ( i f any) a c t s of the detainees m e a n t t h a t they lack t h e protection of the Geneva Conventions or indeed even whether they were belligerents at all. A person who is not a combatant, but who commits an act of terrorism, should be tried for his criminal acts in the ordinary criminal courts, and not before a military commission. Attempts have been made to litigate, in the United S t a t e s ’ courts, the question whether the ordinary courts have j u r i s d i c t i o n to pronounce on the v a l i d i t y of the detention; these proceedings have had varying results, but the question will not be resolved unless and u n t i l the Supreme Court pronounces on it.

I t m u s t b e s a i d t h a t s o m e o f the c r i t i c i s m s of the suggested procedure before a m i l i t a r y c o m m i s s i o n a r e e x a g g e r a t e d o r theoretical. Anyone who h a s had experience of courts martial knows that it is not necessarily true t h a t a n accused will not be properly defended by a m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r. T h e a d m i s s i o n of hearsay evidence does not offend a g a i n s t f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e. I t may be unfairly i n s u l t i n g t o the m e m be rs of the m i l i t a r y commission to say that they will not endeavour to give the accused a fair trial.

There are, however, some obvious objections to trial in these circumstances.

In particular, it is not known what is the nature of the charges, or what is their legal basis. Speaking generally, the accused is not entitled to be given access to all the prosecution m a t e r i a l, and discussions between the accused and h i s lawyer are to be m o n i t o r e d, a l t h o u g h a p p a r e n t l y t h e s e d i s a b i l i t i e s will not be applied to the trial of one of the Australians, Mr Hicks. If the evidence intended to be produced against the detainees includes t h a t o b t a i n e d b y questioning a t Guantanamo Bay, it will have been obtained in violation of fundamental rights.

In any case, it is contrary to ordinary notions of justice and to the principles of the rule of law that the detainees should be denied the opportunity to t e s t in t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r t s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r they a r e r i g h t l y c l a s s e d a s unlawful enemy combatants, and whether their detention and proposed trial are lawful.

Although i t is too much to expect t h a t we shall soon see an end t o t e r r o r i s m generally, I a m sure t h a t we all hope t h a t during 2004 we s h a l l continue to be free from acts of terrorist violence within Australia.

Best wishes to you all. I hope t h a t distance will not deter you f r o m attending the next Conference in Perth from 12 th –14 th March, 2004.

Australia Day Message, 26 January, 2005

This is the fourteenth Australia Day since the foundation of the Society. During the year, we have again held a successful Conference – this t i m e i n Perth. The papers delivered at the Conference are collected in Volume 16 of Upholding t h e Australian C o n s t i t u t i o n, but i t should not be t h o u g h t t h a t the Conference papers are read only by the mem be rs of the Society. They are available on t h e internet and our website has recorded a pleasing number of “hits.” 2004 ended w i t h the t s u n a m i and i t s c a t a s t r o p h i c consequences, which were of such enormity as to eclipse all earlier events. We should not forget that throughout the year death and destruction on a large scale have been caused by war, t e r r o r i s m and ( p a r t i c u l a r l y in A f r i c a ) genocide. On the other hand, A u s t r a l i a h a s r e m a i n e d s e c u r e a n d p r o s p e r o u s, a n d h a s played an increasingly i m p o r t a n t p a r t in i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s. We have reason to be proud of t h e actions of Australian troops and civilians who have served or who are serving in the conduct of the war, or in peace-keeping operations in countries in the region where law and good government have failed or are under threat, or in efforts to restore some normality to those parts of Indonesia which were devastated by the tsunami.

We r e m a i n threatened by t e r r o r i s m. The t h r e a t is made p a r t i c u l a r l y difficult to avert by the facts that terrorists are elusive, ruthless and fanatical to such an extent t h a t they are prepared to c o m m i t suicide in order t o p e r p e t r a t e t h e i r crimes. In these circumstances i t is understandable t h a t measures should be taken which would be unacceptable in n o r m a l t i m e s. I t i s important, however, that such measures should infringe as little as possible the rights long recognised by the law, and should not allow those who c a r r y t h e m out to act in a way that would offend the ordinary standards of humanity.

In this regard, it has been a matter of concern that the United States has, in c o m b a t i n g t e r r o r i s m, r e s o r t e d t o “ i n t e r r o g a t i o n ” measures which deny t h e long standing principles of liberty to which t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s dedicated. In p a r t i c u l a r, i t proposes to e s t a b l i s h p r i s o n s in a number of countries and t o incarcerate there some alleged terrorists without trial for an indefinite period, possibly for life. If many reports are correct, the treatment of some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can only be described a s t o r t u r e, and U n i t e d S t a t e s o f f i c i a l s have connived at the removal of suspects to other countries, such as Egypt, with the expectation that they will be tortured in an attempt to obtain information concerning terrorists and their activities.

Even viewed in the light of the momentous happenings of the year, it must surely be agreed by supporters of a l l p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s t h a t the recent federal election and its results were of considerable significance to all Australians. The f a c t that the Government h a s control of the Senate a s well a s the House of Representatives is both an opportunity and a temptation. The Government now h a s an opportunity to ensure the passage of necessary legislation which t h e Senate had previously prevented, sometimes on grounds of mere caprice. On the o t h e r h a n d, u n f e t t e r e d p o w e r t e m p t s h o l d e r s o f t h a t p o w e r t o abuse i t by, for e x a m p l e, e n a c t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t u n d u l y f a v o u r s one section of society or i s otherwise oppressive or unfair in its operation. It is, of course, hoped that the Government will seize the opportunity and resist the temptation.

During the campaigns that preceded the election, both major p a r t i e s l a i d e m p h a s i s on t h e i r respective policies concerning m a t t e r s of h e a l t h a n d e d u c a t i o n. W h e n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n w a s f i r s t a c c e p t e d b y t h e A u s t r a l i a n people and passed into law, i t was intended t h a t h e a l t h and education should be m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n of the S t a t e s. T h a t h a s long since ceased to be the case; the influence of the Commonwealth in those fields has been largely due to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use of s.96 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n, under w h i c h t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h m a k e s g r a n t s o f finance to t h e S t a t e s o n conditions which enable the Commonwealth to achieve results otherwise beyond Commonwealth power.

The trend t o w a r d s c e n t r a l i s m was, during the election, pushed a l i t t l e f u r th er. I t was announced as government policy t h a t t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h i t s e l f would establish technical colleges and would make g r a n t s directly to school bodies. It would appear that these things could not be done by the use of s.96, which refers to financial a s s i s t a n c e to any S t a t e. Perhaps the scope of t h e appropriation power will fall for consideration if t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ’ s a c t i o n s are challenged.

Further, Ministers, not expressing government policy, have suggested t h a t the Commonwealth should assume sole responsibility for h o s p i t a l s a n d universities. There is no doubt that the division of functions in these fields has proved to be f a r f r o m s a t i s f a c t o r y. B e s i d e s t h e d i f f i c u l t y of avoiding conflict between the demands of different bureaucracies there is the f a c t t h a t when power is divided so is responsibility, so t h a t each blames the other f o r deficiencies in the system.

The remedy, however, is not to transfer to the Commonwealth all power to deal w i t h h e a l t h a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s. I t is anomalous t h a t a l t h o u g h the c e n t r a l authorities seem whole-heartedly committed to a policy that values competition above most other considerations in relation to business, they f a i l to recognise t h a t competition between the S t a t e s may be equally valuable. Health a n d education very closely affect every citizen, but the needs of the inhabitants of one S t a t e would not necessarily be t h e s a m e i n every respect a s those of a n o t h e r State. It is not too much to hope that in the field of medicine, for example, the advances of technology, efficiency, or standards of care and compassion in one S t a t e m a y p r o v i d e a m o d e l f o r o t h e r s. P e r h a p s one role of t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h would be to enact and enforce uniform minimal standards.

The balance originally provided by the Constitution, between the powers of the Commonwealth and those of the States, has largely broken down, but has not been replaced by any coherent division of powers. I t would be a g r e a t achievement if the Commonwealth and the States could reach a n a g r e e m e n t a s to the extent of their respective powers in relation to health and education in a way that would avoid the deficiencies of the present system. No doubt questions of finance amongst others would make it difficult to reach agreement. It would be for the good of the nation if these difficulties could be overcome.

There a r e m a n y m a t t e r s t h a t o b v i o u s l y a p p e a r t o call for reform in t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e n a t i o n a n d which will no doubt require the a t t e n t i o n of t h e government. Many of these matters will give rise to controversy – for instance, the reform of i n d u s t r i a l relations is likely to a t t r a c t the opposition of t h e unions, and the achievement of a Commonwealth-State plan to ensure t h e continued flow of water in our inland rivers will probably cause some States to hold back because of the financial consequences. There is, however, one reform which, if successfully implemented, should (in Macbeth’s words) buy “golden opinions from all s o r t s of people”, even one hopes from the officials of t h e T r e a s u r y a n d t h e A u s t r a l i a n T a x a t i o n Office. This reform may a t f i r s t s i g h t s e e m i n s i g n i f i c a n t c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r m a t t e r s o f g r e a t m o m e n t t h a t w i l l be considered by the government, but in f a c t would be of very g r e a t benefit t o business, trade and the community generally.

The reform to which I refer is the re-writing of the income tax legislation.

This does not necessarily involve issues concerning levels of t a x a t i o n. The l a w s relating to income tax are a disgrace. There is nothing new in that reproach – it has been true for at least a decade, the only change being that the situation is getting worse. The l e g i s l a t i o n i s absurdly voluminous compared w i t h o u r own earlier legislation, and with other tax systems, and the volume increases rapidly from year to year.

Much of the legislation is obscure to the point of being incomprehensible. It g i v e s t h e A u s t r a l i a n T a x a t i o n Office unacceptably wide discretionary powers, including those given by the anti-avoidance provisions of p a r t I V A, which were inserted in an over-reaction to some earlier decisions of the High Court. It is, I think, true to say that many practicing accountants no longer try to unravel the mysteries of the legislation by reading its provisions – r a t h e r t h e y rely on t h e various documents and rulings issued by the A u s t r a l i a n T a x a t i o n Office – a subordination of the rule of law to the opinions of the Executive. The uncertainty of the law is an impediment to business generally.

What is needed is a completely new statute of manageable size and clearly d r a f t e d. By c l a r i t y of d r a f t i n g, I do not suggest t h a t there should be a repetition of the ill-fated a t t e m p t to p u t the income t a x law into “ P l a i n English”. Without clarity of thought, there can be no clarity of expression. If the present obscurities of the law were removed, there would be no need to confer on the Taxation Office discretionary powers that are offensively wide.

Such a t a s k, if undertaken, could not be left to the Treasury and t h e A u s t r a l i a n T a x a t i o n Office, a l t h o u g h officials from those bodies m i g h t of course provide invaluable assistance. The undertaking should, I think, be carried out under the supervision of a body including representatives of business, t h e legal and accountancy professions and a c a d e m i a, and if t h o u g h t necessary experts from the United States and the United Kingdom. It would not be an easy task, but its successful completion would be a lasting achievement to the credit of the government and something of lasting value for Australians generally.

I have s a i d t h a t t h i s proposal would not necessarily entail any considerations of taxation levels. One would hope that the taxation scales will be reviewed. However, that review should be a s e p a r a t e exercise from the rewriting of the legislation and should be kept separate from it because, whereas there are likely to be widely differing views as to what scales a r e a p p r o p r i a t e, there should be general agreement that the tax law should be rendered clear and accessible. The re-writing of the t a x a t i o n law could provide s i m p l i c i t y ; t h e achievement of equity is another question.

At t h i s r a t h e r r e s t l e s s t i m e, when it h a s become common to urge us t o make unnecessary changes (although necessary changes are often resisted), there have been suggestions that the date on which Australia Day is celebrated should be altered. The intention of A u s t r a l i a Day is to m a r k t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f w h a t A u s t r a l i a is today, and the foundations of w h a t h a s become modern day Australia were laid on 26 January, 1788. The 26 th J a n u a r y i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e d a t e on which to celebrate the achievements of the nation.

I would remind you t h a t o u r next Conference will be held a t C o o l a n g a t t a from the 8 th to the 10 th April, 2005 and hope you will be able to attend.

–  –  –

1. Addresses Bob BOTTOM, OAM was e d u c a t e d a t M a r i s t B r o t h e r s C o l l e g e, Broken Hill b u t left school aged 15 to become a cadet j o u r n a l i s t. Since then he h a s spent a l i f e t i m e i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n d reporting upon organised crime and corruption in A u s t r a l i a, and is the a u t h o r of seven best-selling books on these topics. H i s report on organised crime in NSW (1978) was a landmark document of its kind.

Since then he has participated in the setting up of the National Crime Authority (1983) and its more recent reformation into the Australian Crime Commission;

the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the NSW Independent Commission Against C o r r u p t i o n ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; a n d e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the Queensland Crime Commission (1998). M o s t recently he h a s a s s i s t e d a V i c t o r i a P o l i c e Organised Crime S t r a t e g y group in tackling Melbourne’s gangland warfare.

The Hon Chief Justice Paul de JERSEY, AC was e d u c a t e d a t Church of England G r a m m a r School, Brisbane and the University of Queensland (BA, 1969; LLB, 1971), and was called to the Bar in Brisbane in 1971, becoming Queen’s Counsel in 1981. A judge of the Queensland Supreme Court since 1985, he was appointed Chief Justice in 1998. During 1996-98 he was President of the Industrial Court of Queensland and also Chairman of the Queensland Law Reform Commission. He has been Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane since 1991.

2. Conference Contributors Dr John FORBES was educated at Waverley College, Sydney and the Universities of Sydney (BA, 1956; LLM, 1971) and Queensland (PhD, 1982). He was admitted to the New South Wales B a r in 1959 and subsequently in Queensland and, a f t e r serving as an Associate to Mr Justice McTiernan of the High Court, practised in Q u e e n s l a n d a s a b a r r i s t e r - a t - l a w. A f t e r a l o n g c a r e e r i n t h e L a w F a c u l t y of t h e University of Queensland (1969-1999), during which time he published t e x t s o n the History and S t r u c t u r e of the A u s t r a l i a n Legal Profession, Evidence, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w a n d M i n i n g a n d P e t r o l e u m Law, he retired, and h a s since become perhaps Australia’s foremost expert on the law of native title.

–  –  –

Bruce GRUNDY was educated at Church of England G r a m m a r School, Brisbane and La Trobe University (BEd, 1975). His 44-year career in journalism, teaching and the media began when he joined the ABC in 1961, and has included periods as producer of ABC Radio Rural and Talks programs; executive producer of ABC Television Current A f f a i r s and R a d i o A u s t r a l i a p r o g r a m s ; and editor of Brisbane’s The Weekend Independent n e w s p a p e r. I n 1 9 7 9 h e l e f t R a d i o A u s t r a l i a f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Government in the University of Queensland, becoming Associate Professor in t h e D e p a r t m e n t of J o u r n a l i s m t h e r e i n 1991. He is now J o u r n a l i s t in Residence and Senior Lecturer in the School of J o u r n a l i s m a n d Communication at that University.

Dr Dominic KATTER was educated at St Joseph’s College, Brisbane and at several Universities in Australia and abroad. His BA (1994), LLB (1996) and LLM (1998) at the University of Queensland were followed by his M Phil (Cantab) (1999) and his SJD (2003) a t Queensland University of Technology. After a period a s Associate to Mr Justice Callinan of the High Court he commenced practice at the Queensland Bar in 2001, and has since appeared before the High Court as junior counsel. He has lectured in a number of subjects at the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology.

Kevin LINDEBERG was educated at Maryborough Boys High School and holds an Associate Diploma in I n d u s t r i a l Relations from Brisbane College of Advanced Education (1988). A former Queensland public sector trade union organiser who now works a s a f r e e l a n c e p o l i t i c a l c a r t o o n i s t / c a r i c a t u r i s t, h e h a s become the central figure in the unresolved Heiner Affair, arising out of the clandestine and allegedly illegal shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents by the Queensland Cabinet in 1990. His public interest disclosure in t h a t a f f a i r h a s come before federal and S t a t e P a r l i a m e n t s, including both Senate and House of Representatives c o m m i t t e e s. The a f f a i r, which is listed by the i n t e r n a t i o n a l archives/recordkeeping community as one of t h e 1 4 g r e a t document shredding s c a n d a l s o f t h e 2 0 th Century, remains a m a t t e r o f concern to anyone concerned with legal and constitutional propriety in Queensland and more generally.

John NETHERCOTE was educated a t B l a k e h u r s t High School, Sydney and t h e University of Sydney (BA, 1968). After joining the Commonwealth public service in 1970, he worked over the years for the Public Service Board, the Royal Commission on A u s t r a l i a n Government A d m i n i s t r a t i o n, the Public Service Commission of Canada and the Defence Review Committee. He joined the staff of the Senate in 1987 and h i s a s s i g n m e n t s t h e r e i n c l u d e d S e c r e t a r y to t h e S e n a t e Standing C o m m i t t e e on Finance and Public A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and overseeing publication of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice ( 6 t h e d i t i o n ). H e a l s o edited Parliament and Bureaucracy (1982) and was a j o i n t editor of The Constitutional Commission and the 1988 Referendums ( 1 9 8 8 ) a n d The Menzies E r a (1995). Since retirement from the Senate staff he has written extensively for The Canberra Times on public s e r v i c e m a t t e r s and edited L i b e r a l i s m and t h e Australian Federation (2001).

–  –  –

this time he also served as a full-time member of the Taxation Board of Review No. 1 (1981-1984) and a s a p a r t - t i m e member of the A u s t r a l i a n Accounting S t a n d a r d s B o a r d (1992-1994). In 2000 he took up a p p o i n t m e n t a s Senior Lecturer in Law in the University of New England. He has had a long and active interest in public affairs and is presently Chairman of the New England Federal Electorate Council of the National Party.

Professor Suri RATNAPALA was educated in Colombo, Sri Lanka, undertaking his f i r s t degree (LLB, 1970) a t the University of Colombo. Before m i g r a t i n g t o A u s t r a l i a i n 1 9 8 3 h e s e r v e d a s a S e n i o r S t a t e Counsel in the Attorney-General’s D e p a r t m e n t of S r i Lanka, where he was involved in d r a f t i n g t h a t country’s republican Constitution. He completed his LLM degree at M a c q u a r i e U n i v e r s i t y in 1987 and his PhD(1995) at the University of Queensland, where he has taught since 1988. He is now Professor of Public Law there and co-editor of t h e University of Queensland Law Journal. H e i s t h e a u t h o r o f n u m e r o u s a r t i c l e s i n professional journals and a number of other publications, including Welfare S t a t e o r C o n s t i t u t i o n a l S t a t e ? (1990), The Illusions of Comparable Worth ( 1 9 9 2 ) (with Gabriel Moens), and Mabo: A Judicial Revolution (1993) (co-editor). H i s m o s t recent work is Australian Constitutional Law: Foundations and Theory (2002).

Professor Gregory ROSE was educated at Mount Scopus College, Melbourne a n d a t M o n a s h University (BA, 1981; LLB, 1983; LLM, 1989). In 1990 he joined t h e Marine Resources P r o g r a m a t the Foundation f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Environmental Law and Development at the University of London, becoming its Director (1991In 1994 he joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, becoming head of the Trade, Environment and Nuclear Law Unit in the Legal Office of that Department. In 1998 he moved to the University of Wollongong, where he is now Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, Director of Research for the Centre for T r a n s n a t i o n a l Crime Prevention and a member of the Centre for M a r i t i m e Policy. His research specialises in international law, focusing on both terrorism and environmental issues.

Sir David SMITH, KCVO, AO was educated at Scotch College, Melbourne and a t Melbourne and t h e A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s (BA, 1967). After entering the Commonwealth Public Service in 1954, he became in 1973 Official Secretary to the then Governor-General of Australia (Sir Paul Hasluck). After having served five successive Governors-General in t h a t c a p a c i t y, he r e t i r e d in 1990, being personally knighted by The Queen. In February, 1998 he attended t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention in Canberra a s an appointed delegate, a n d subsequently played a prominent role in t h e “ N o ” C a s e C o m m i t t e e f o r t h e 1 9 9 9 Referendum. He is now a visiting Scholar in the Faculty of Law of the Australian National University, where his researches have done much to clarify the role of the Governor-General in Australia’s constitutional arrangements.

John STONE was e d u c a t e d a t P e r t h Modern School, the University of Western A u s t r a l i a (BSc Hons, 1950) and then, a s a Rhodes Scholar, a t New College, Oxford (BA Hons, 1954). He joined the Australian Treasury in 1954, and over a Treasury career of 30 years served in a number of posts a t home and a b r o a d, including as Australia’s Executive Director in both the IMF and the World Bank in Washington, DC (1967-70). In 1979 he became Secretary to the Treasury, resigning from that post – and from the Commonwealth Public Service – in 1984.

S i n c e t h a t t i m e h e h a s b e e n, a t one time and another, a Professor a t M o n a s h University, a newspaper columnist, a company director, a Senator f o r Queensland and Leader of the National Party in the Senate and Shadow Minister for Finance. In 1996-97 he served as a member of the Defence Efficiency Review, and in 1999 was a member of the V i c t o r i a n C o m m i t t e e for the No Republic Campaign. A principal founder of The Samuel Griffith Society, he has served on i t s B o a r d of Management since i t s inception in 1992 and is the E d i t o r a n d

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 32 | 33 ||

Similar works:

«NETHERLANDS PHILATELISTS of CALIFORNIA (now in its 44th year) Correspondence to: Honorary Members: Franklin Ennik John Heimans 3168 Tice Creek Drive # 3, Walnut Creek, CA 94595 George Vandenberg E-mail: ennik123@att.net † Ralph Van Heerden Telephone: 925-952-9424 Website: http://www.npofc.org November 2013 October meeting. Attending at the home of Stuart Leven were: Dennis Buss, Franklin Ennik, HansPaul Hager, Arno Kolster, Stuart Leven, Hans Kremer, Paul Swierstra, and Fred Van der Heyden....»

«Contents | vii Acknowledgments |1 Introduction Section i: Apprenticing to JeSuS | 11 Eternal Truth and the Daily Grind 2 | 22 The Kingdom Vision Section ii: Life through preSence The Gift of Presence | 33 All There | 41 Section iii: Life through AttentiveneSS | 49 Our Culture’s Rarest Commodity | 57 The Ministry of Listening Section iv: Life through incArnAtion | 69 Drawing Near | 78 Taking on Flesh Section v: Life through Authenticity A Drought of the Real | 89 A Draught of the Real | 101...»

«!./%(-0,1)$'*$20,13!'+)40+5%+)$60'7',0847$ 94:'(4)'(0%-;$=%-$*'($!'+,(%$ (4+?$@'))('+$ !#$%&'%()*%+*!$%#+$#*&+,*-#$.+/'/01*2/'%$1* A4+4$BC$#1%4$ !#$%&'%()*%+*!$%#+$#*&+,*-#$.+/'/01*2/'%$1* 3&1*45*6778* !'+,(%0'+47$%-%4(81$#%(/08% 9:;977* =$(=0/?* @474AB* !#$%&'()$*'($!'+,(%-Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress #$%&'()*!+,!-'()./+0*1'02$0*!3'+4+('514!617+%1*+%'$&8!9&&:$&!,+%!/+0(%$&&! ! #=554(D$ The federal government responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the...»

«Most Serious Legislative Most Litigated Case Advocacy Appendices Problems Recommendations Issues Accuracy-Related Penalty Under IRC § 6662(b)(1) and (2) MLI #1 SUMMARY Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §§ 6662(b)(1) and (2) authorize the IRS to impose a penalty if a taxpayer’s negligence or disregard of rules or regulations causes an underpayment of tax or if an underpayment exceeds a computational threshold called a substantial understatement, respectively. IRC § 6662(b) also authorizes the...»

«Geomicrobiology of highly acidic, pendulous biofilms (“snottites”) from the Frasassi Caves, Italy Daniel S. Jones Senior Integrative Exercise March 10, 2005 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota. Table of Contents Abstract Introduction..1 Methods... 3 Study area and sampling sites 3 Geochemistry 8 Sample collection and preservation 8 16S rDNA clone library construction 9 Sequencing and phylogenetic...»

«Got Grit? Let us cultivate our garden.Voltaire Got Grit? Let us cultivate our garden.Voltaire Created by: Eastern Michigan University Bright Futures 21st Century Community Learning Centers Programs These materials were developed under a grant awarded by the Michigan Department of Education. A word about Eastern Michigan University Bright Futures Our programs currently serve approximately 1200 students and families from 15 schools in three school districts (Romulus, Ypsilanti, and Wayne-Westland...»

«TREATY OF AMSTERDAM AMENDING THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, THE TREATIES ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN RELATED ACTS INTRODUCTORY NOTE This publication reproduces the text of the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, as signed in Amsterdam on 2 October 1997. The text has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions A great deal...»

«MORAY PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended 30 September 2013 CONTENTS Page 1 About Your Company 2 Financial Summary 3 Letter to Shareholders 6 Guiding Principles 8 Portfolio as at 30 September 2013 10 Authorised Corporate Director’s Responsibilities 11 Depositary’s Responsibilities and Report 12 Independent Auditors’ Report 14 Financial Statements 16 Notes to the Financial Statements 22 Information for Investors 24 Corporate Directory MORAY PLACE...»

«239 J. Physiol. (I94I) IOO, 6I2.74I.9 239-245 A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE FRACTION OF THE VOLUME OF A MUSCLE CONTAINED IN THE VASCULAR SYSTEM BY J. F. DANIELLI (Beit Memorial Research Fellow) From the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University College, London, and the Department of Biochemistry, Cambridge (Received 16 January 1941) WHEN a muscle is perfused with a solution containing a substance X which can penetrate into the muscle cells, the substance first enters the vascular...»

«Removing Barriers to Change: The Unwritten Rules of the Game Peter B. Scott-Morgan In every realm of our lives, whether we’re at work or play, there are Rules of the Game. And these rules always come in two forms – written rules and unwritten rules. As an Englishman, I had this lesson brought forcibly home the first time I tried driving a car in Boston. The driver’s manual says that when you get to a rotary the cars already on the rotary have the right of way. I’m supposed to slow down,...»

«Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap First Edition – 2013 A DRAFT November 7, 2013 Dear Members of the Aviation Community: I am pleased to present the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Roadmap for Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA and the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) worked together for the past year to produce this roadmap. Unmanned aircraft offer...»

«Scripture Sketches —Christian Attitudes — A Meditation on the Life of Abishai Table of Contents Preface Introduction Chapter 1 A Disobedient Spirit-1 Sam. 26 Chapter 2 A Vindictive Spirit-2 Sam. 3 Chapter 3 A Chaffed Spirit-2 Sam. 16 Chapter 4 An Unforgiving Spirit-2 Sam.19 Chapter 5 A Changed Spirit-2 Sam. 20 Chapter 6 A Courageous Spirit-2 Sam. 21:15-17 Chapter 7 A Rewarded Spirit-2 Sam. 22:13-19 Douglas Nicolet Preface The accounts of men and women recorded in the precious Word of God...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.sa.i-pdf.info - Abstracts, books, theses

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.