Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House of what the government is doing to increase transparency in judicial appointments?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. This is an important issue. The Rudd government is committed to open government, and that is why we have introduced greater transparency and broader consultation in respect of the appointment of senior public servants. On the weekend I had the opportunity to give a speech to the Queensland Bar Association, and I outlined similar proposals in respect of the appointment of federal magistrates and federal judges. As a result of vacancies that have arisen on the Federal Magistrates Court, I have had the opportunity to put that process in train.

We have put ads in national newspapers calling for expressions of interest by way of application or nomination. We have sought input from a broad cross-section not only of the legal professional bodies but also of the community legal centres, the Legal Aid Commission, academia and the Australian Women Lawyers Association. I intend to appoint a selection panel made up of the Chief Magistrate, a retired judge and a representative of my department. That panel will assist in the selection of candidates according to criteria which have been published on the department’s website—criteria determined to achieve not only selection on the basis of merit but personalities who have empathy with litigants who appear before them. That panel will provide me with a short-list, and it is proposed that I would recommend a suitable candidate from that short-list for the consideration of government. I have outlined options in respect of the appointment of Federal Court and Family Court judges. I have invited input from the profession. I also have invited input from the broader public. Indeed, I would welcome input from members of the House.

It is an incremental step but an important step. We are not advocating a United States-type veto through the Senate or otherwise, but it is an important step to assure Australians that those people who will deliberate in respect of their rights or, if it be in force, obligations against them are chosen not by a narrow, select few but by an appropriately qualified panel. It is important that Australians have confidence that all judicial appointments are entirely on the basis of merit, not on personal associations or political affiliations. This is an important step in further developing the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to open government.