Sean Fewster: John Rau’s appointment as SC raises questions and was poorly timed
ATTORNEY-GENERAL John Rau’s appointment to the legal elite raises uncomfortable questions and couldn’t have been more poorly timed for the State Government, says Sean Fewster
HE wouldn’t have known it when he filed his application, but Attorney-General John Rau’s elevation to Senior Counsel couldn’t have come at a worse time for the State Government.
Reeling from the Gillman snafu, knocked down on the nuclear dump, vulnerable on child protection yet again, Mr Rau and his colleagues have taken a public hammering of late.
Doubtless it was in somewhat rosier times that Mr Rau — an experienced barrister prior to his time in politics — filed his bid to be named among the legal profession’s elite.
Indeed it must have been, given the Supreme Court’s own rules demand all applications be on the desk of Chief Justice Chris Kourakis before June 30 each year.
Sadly, that in no way dulls the keenly-edged, unfortunate implications Mr Rau’s appointment carries with it.
There is much more to being an SC — as former Premier Mike Rann once pithily noted — than charging more than one’s peers and having letters at the end of one’s name.
The criteria for selection include the highest demonstrable levels of legal learning, experience and skill in advocacy, integrity, availability to prospective clients and independence.
Given his multitude of portfolios, how does Mr Rau intend to be available to prospective legal clients?
Is he, as the Opposition has already suggested, in the market for a new job?
The situation has, on the one hand, the sense of preparing for the worst — of Mr Rau planning his exit strategy from a teetering government.
On the other, it revives longstanding rumours within the legal fraternity that Mr Rau sees himself as Chief Judge Geoffrey Muecke’s heir apparent and next leader of the District Court.
Mr Rau has repeatedly denied there is any truth to the rumour.
And then there’s the SC selection process itself, outlined in the Supreme Court (Civil) Supplementary Rules (2014).
The final decision on appointees rests with the entire Supreme Court bench but, before those decisions are made, all applications go through a consultation process.
Under Part 12, Division 3, section 336, the Attorney-General is one of 16 individuals who receive a list of SC applicants and a copy of their applications.
Section 337 says the Attorney-General or his “nominee” is among nine individuals who are to be consulted regarding the applicants prior to the final decision.
Did Mr Rau take part in the consultation or disqualify himself?
At time of writing, we simply don’t know — neither he nor Chief Justice Kourakis has answered the question.
You’d be forgiven for thinking it would have been a wise PR move for Mr Rau’s pre-written response to the announcement to clear up that concern from the get-go.
Without that clarification, a well-thought-out process conducted by jurists of unimpeachable character is at the very least smudged, if not tarnished, by reasonable doubt.