Rhodes Scholars and High Court judges

are not chosen by the government.
It became very obvious yesterday that the general population does not understand this - and that some sections of the media were only too happy to allow these misconceptions to spread for their own purposes.
This happened because a former High Court judge was "found guilty" of sexual harassment after an investigation by the current members of the High Court.  I don't know whether the allegations made against him are true or not.  
I do know he was not popular. He was not popular as the Commissioner who oversaw the Royal Commission into certain aspects of the Trade Union movement. He certainly allowed a former Prime Minister to avoid answering questions that should have been asked - something many have questioned since then.
He was also "conservative" in his judgments - and a Catholic. 
I also know it is easy to make allegations of sexual harassment. That is not to say these things did not happen or that they should not be taken with the utmost seriousness.
But the statement made by the Chief Justice of the High Court allowed others to use that statement to make statements that are not correct. When a vacancy occurs High Court judges are not simply plucked from the air and placed on the bench.  I was at Law School when a vacancy occurred and the process was discussed. I know that staff there were consulted about possible names, other members of the legal profession were consulted about possible names. There was a great deal of discussion. There were interviews, reviews and more. The Opposition of the day was also consulted - something which may surprise people who, all too often, see these appointments as purely political. They aren't - although if the Opposition does not get their choice they will claim they are. Once in a while there will be a dud appointment or someone will be appointed for political reasons - because of their sex on one occasion or to be rid of them from parliament on another occasion.  Even those people had sufficient qualifications - although there were possibly better candidates available.
The process is not perfect but it is not correct to say that it is who you know or what you are that alone gets you appointed.
The same is true of Rhodes' Scholars. I once discussed the process with a former Governor of this state. He was chairman of the committee that chose the candidate. Interestingly he told me that people were never granted a scholarship the first time they applied. The committee in question was made up not of politicians but of people from academia, people like the Governor and people who were able to assess what the candidates might have to offer over a long period of time. It was not simply a matter of being a  good scholar who was good at sport and had played some sort of leadership role at university. They are, among other things, looking for young people who have some sort of wider vision for the future.
But all this was of no account to people on Twitter yesterday. The former High Court judge was "appointed" by a former Prime Minister - a man the left loves to hate. The appointment was of course in return for the former Prime Minister having been granted his Rhodes Scholarship by the High Court judge. Neither of these statements is correct or even close to reality but those who tweeted and retweeted knew that, repeated often enough, they would be able to get some people to believe that is how these things work.  They are of course doing damage to our legal system and to anyone who obtains a Rhodes scholarship. No doubt they believe this is "justified" in some tortuous way - although I struggle to work out how it benefits anyone.
This is also how "false news" starts.