Parliamentary Handbook Exchange - Book reviews

 Now, 2024, is the 40th anniversary year of the inception of the great institution 'The Parliamentary Handbook Exchange Est 1984'. At the most recent luncheon of the Society members, hosted by Paul Cook at the Athenaeum Club in November 2024, discussion centred around the absence of any written reviews of any of the books currently in circulation from the National Library of the Parliamentary Book Exchange.

This must be remedied. As more and more books are being presented, normally on loan from the owner wishing to retain the (possibly) most valuable item in their library, it is becoming imperative that members of the PBE/WWS know which books to delve into, and which to discard. We must look after each other, and help by reading a book now and then, and providing a review for this e-journal. Of course, the opposite also has many advocates: don't review any of the books and certainly don't waste your time writing that which no one will want to read.

I'm going to start with a review of the papers of the "21st Australian Legal Convention, Hobart, Tas July 1981" entitled "The Brief Case".

Well, starting right there, indicates the start of legal books having innocuous and egocentric titles, bourn out of lack of imagination and attempt at humour. Did anyone laugh - "Oh yes, what a funny name for a souvenir of a legal convention, 'the Brief Case', ha ha ha".

Moving on from the title, we find that a serious note is sounded for the members of the PBE: many of the Law Council and Law Society and Bar Association  written up in the frontispiece are either dead now, or demented now and possibly then. 

Further, is the interesting feature of the Tasmanian representatives on Law Council, coming as was apparently mandated, from the 3 zones of Tasmania: Anderson, Bessell and Blow from the north, Ric Southee, Ewan Crawford, Peter Cranswick, Jamie Hurburgh. Piggy Page. Michael Roach ("see me"), Tony Holmes, RWF Young, W Zeeman and secertary - Cyril Clark!

How we must have wondered what these institutions were and how they were populated by authoritarian figures, either seeking to 'contribute' in their own way, or aligning themselves in order to gain traction on the slippery upward slope to professional stardom.

Next, our book under review has a few pages of the sub committees of the Law Council, predominated by Tasmanians (as the convention was held in Hobart). I see that JR Upcher was liaison member of the Banquet sub committee, helped in this onerous task by Ian Lewis, Michael Crisp and Bill Ayliffe. Upcher was also responsible for the Home Entertainment sub committee. Hands in many pies.

So many names conjure memories of characters: Bill Cox, Guy Green, Albert Ogilvie, John Blackwood, Chris Wright, Peter Evans, Duncan C-Kerr, Ian Matterson, Balls Walker, Rob Fay, Guy Clift, Hugh Murray, Glen Hay (responsible for 'luncheons'), Cameron Leslie, John Gray, Howard Piggott, Damian Bugg, FB Dixon, L Sealy, Black Pete Manser, G Melick (Colonel), FD Cumbrae-Stewart (author of the Local Government Act 1962), John Dale and some who attracted attention for the wrong reasons: Chris Parks, Andrew Hurburgh - and many more.

A short welcome letter from Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser sends greetings to the participants and features a steely smile-less photograph and the clutch cargo style jaw of the man who showed us that we must pay for our lunches.

The start of the content of the book indicates the importance at such times, of having notable legal personages from as far away as possible, ideally with important titles: Baron Lane, Mr Justice Kerr, Prof Zeidler, Harold Healy Jnr, Prof Wade. All born in or around 1920 and most having served in their country's armed forces.

Guy Green provided a history of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which ran to 3/4 of a page. It rivals a recent book "From Invasion to the Computer: by a more recent Supreme Court justice.

I have started reading the first article in the book "Origin and Evolution of Tasmanian Law", and remember now that GL Sealy, our own member, has in hand two important legal books: "The Law and Practice of Adjournments in Superior Courts of Australia", and another something to do with law, but progress is in abeyance, or adjourned.

This particular article was a reprint from 1963 of the same, written by David Chambers in 1963. It would appear the tone was set by this ease of re-publication, in lieu of new law.

George Brown contributed article 2, on the First Sitting of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Again, academic information caste before the swine of contemporary legal practitioners.

I think the fact that the 3rd article is, again, a reprint, indicates why none of us have read much of this booklet. James Backhouse Walker, who died in 1899, contributed to the 1981 Australian Legal Convention, an article on our Supreme Court - Macquarie Street.

As a great wit once said "I'm leaving this party, someone is boring me, and I think it is me".

However, my roving eye caught the 5th article in the booklet: "Mr Solicitor versus Mr Attorney!" - and Leigh Sealy, ME O'Farrell and Ghee Barnett came to mind. 

The first Solicitor-General of Van Dieman's Land, in 1825, tendered his resignation. Governor Arthur refused to accept it. The newspaper of the day was unrestrained in expressing delight at the resignation. But the glee was tainted by favouritism between the editor and the Attorney. The Solicitor-General, Alfred Stephen, aged 23 years (!) expressed inability to work with the Attorney, Gellibrand. Chief Justice Pedder was appointed to inquire into the Attorney's misconduct: being an disestablishment man, and apparently having misconducted himself by acting for both sides - plaintiff and defendant - in the same case.

The result was Governor Arthur dismissing the Attorney-General Gellibrand. Reputations tarnished, and others rising to great heights riding the right horse.

I leave it to you to read this entertaining article and to follow up with the reported decisions and news articles of the day. As they say: "you do the [maths] research".

Although there is much more to satisfy the enquiring mind, we might find it of interest to read the 8th article in the booklet: An Historical Review of the Law School - University of Tasmania. I can add that having lived in recent interesting times, the debacle of maladministration of our University in the most recent decade has given much more fruit for a review of our Law School versus the University of Tasmania!

Coming soon to Netflix:  Torrens Title in Tasmania - a screenplay based on the learned article in the 1981 Australian Legal Convention papers, with acknowledgment to the Acting Registrar-General. Critics say "fascinating viewing"...

But wait! Found at page 81, this work of our own JR Upcher