Page 4492 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me go a little bit into the transparent process that the government adopted in 2007 shortly after I became the Attorney-General. The new judicial appointment protocol was developed following a review of the procedure in other jurisdictions. Selection criteria were developed by my department based on the criteria used in the United Kingdom and other Australian jurisdictions. The selection criteria were made publicly available through advertisement of the positions in local and national media. Recognising that not all suitable candidates will necessarily put themselves forward for consideration by this process, the call for expressions of interest is supplemented by letters seeking nominations from the courts themselves, the legal profession, including groups that represent women lawyers, and broader community stakeholders.
Through this process, groups including the ACT Law Society, the Bar Association, the Women Lawyers Association of the ACT and community stakeholders such as the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre and the ACT Council of Social Service are all consulted. Following consultation and the advertisement for expressions of interest, I request my department to prepare a short list identifying a diverse and qualified field of possible applicants. I also ask my department to conduct a selection process with an interview panel.
This process has just recently been completed in relation to the impending vacancy in the office of Chief Magistrate. That selection panel has included retired judicial officers from this and other jurisdictions, as well as current judicial officers from other jurisdictions, and a representative of my department. These individuals interview the short-listed candidates, assess the possible applicants and their relative claims to the position, and then they provide a report to me on their views as to the suitability of those candidates. Once I have received this, which I will shortly, I will discuss the field of possible candidates with the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate and representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society before preparing a final nomination for consideration by the government.
The government therefore has a robust and well-established process for appointing candidates to judicial office. No more is it an unknown black box out of which a name emerges. Instead, there is a clear, detailed and public process through which candidates can express interest, are assessed and a final decision is made. This mirrors the practice that has been put in place for the High Court and the Federal Court by my colleague the commonwealth Attorney-General and I believe it represents an important evolution in the process by which candidates to judicial office are assessed.
This bill, therefore, represents a much more radical departure from a system which has been proven to work well and to maintain the integrity and the non-political nature of appointments to judicial office—something which is vital in maintaining the integrity and the standing of the third arm of government, the judiciary. The government does believe, however, that the bill presents an opportunity to further embed the arrangements the government has already put in place when it comes to selection. Accordingly, the government will not be supporting the bill as proposed but will be moving amendments to remove the proposed standing committee consultation requirement and, instead, give statutory effect to the judicial appointment protocol developed by the government in 2007.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .