The reason for today posting the Private Members Motion, that was used as the tool to garner support in Australia for South Sudan’s independence, is a growing concern that the current conflict between the new nation, South Sudan, and Sudan in the north, is being fulminated by the Peoples Republic of China. China is the largest owner/beneficiary of significant oil resources in South Sudan, although these resources were discovered by Chevron and developed by Talisman Energy of Canada. It is widely acknowledged that China sold arms to the Muslim government in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, who purchased these arms with royalties from oil exported to China from South Sudan. It was in China’s interest to promote conflict between the north and the south in order to retain control over the oil, just as certain British interests had done in Rhodesia decades earlier. The geopolitical landscape between north and south Sudan has changed, thanks to South Sudan’s sovereignty granted in July 2011, but China’s resource ambitions have not changed. It continues to promote conflict in order to gain advantage in respect of South Sudan’s oil resources. The People’s Republic of China has loaned money to sovereign South Sudan, but continues to supply arms to the Khartoum government in the north.

It should be obvious that Chinese oil companies, which are majority owned and controlled by the Chinese government, are a geopolitical instrument of Beijing, which continues to be an authoritarian regime. What is tolerated by an authoritarian regime, even one as successful as China, stands in stark contrast to that which may be considered acceptable to a democracy. Surely it is time for western governments to extend enough financial assistance to South Sudan, so that Chinese state involvement in South Sudan’s oil industry may be foreclosed, and the conflict and loss of life may stop.

A McKenzie friend is a common law exception to the rule that only a qualified legal practitioner may represent a litigant. This exception is not well understood. The UK Courts have acknowedged that Judges frequently misapply the law when granting the privilege to address the court. Granting this privilege where it should not be granted serves to undermine the efficient administration of justice, does a disservice to the Court, and prejudices the opponent.

President Woodrow Wilson said, "Friendship is the only cement that will ever hold the world together", but friendship should be rarely granted a comfortable seat in a court of law.

The rule of law is dependent on public perception that there is consistency or parity in the application and enforcement of the law. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently been in sharp focus because of a perception that it has been ineffective in enforcing the law.

The SEC should, as a matter of principle and public policy, be required to achieve a better result for injured parties than they would have otherwise achieved under the common law.

Justice Mason of the High Court of Australia in Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, at 610 (as he then was) said:

“Just as consistency in punishment — a reflection of the notion of equal justice — is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community.”

This view was echoed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R, and fully highlighted by the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260 (2005); Blakely v Washington 17 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and Apprendi v New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

The Dell Inc settlement of SEC accounting fraud charges appears to be inconsistent with previous accounting fraud settlements in the same arena, and of the same magnitude. Public perception of the rule of law may be undermined if the SEC settles fraud charges for significantly less than has been done in previous cases, particularly where the settlement does not impose a substantive penalty on the architects of the fraud, and one which is proportionate to the magnitude of loss suffered by the public.