Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I am aware of the report that Senator Murray mentions, although I have not read it, and also that the shadow Attorney-General in Queensland said that a coalition government in Queensland would introduce new guidelines to ensure appointment on merit and also mandate consultation with certain office holders.

I think it is fair to say that the process for selecting judges at the Commonwealth level in Australia has produced a judiciary that is held in high regard both domestically and internationally. Of course the essential criterion for the appointment of a judge at the federal level will continue to be merit. Merit means legal excellence, a demonstrated capacity for industry and a temperament suited to the performance of the judicial function. Those three attributes are essential to any position of judicial office holding.

As well as that, I can tell the Senate that in any cabinet appointment of a judicial nature an extensive consultation process is engaged in by the Attorney-General. That can involve a number of bodies. For instance, from time to time the Attorney-General consults with legal professional bodies such as the Law Council, the Australian Bar Association and the relevant state and territory bar associations and law societies around the country.

The Attorney has also put on record that from time to time he has discussions with serving and former judges. That is an extensive process which has been followed under this government in relation to the appointment of judicial office holders. I understand that the United Kingdom has embarked upon a judicial appointments process change which involves the creation of a judicial appointments commission. While a judicial appointments commission may be appropriate for the United Kingdom, it is not a precedent which the government believes should be followed here in Australia. In the UK, there is one central government which is responsible for most appointments. In Australia, of course, we have a very different system. The make-up of our governments and our Federation are quite different.

The total number of federal judicial office holders in Australia, I am advised, is around 135. It would be unusual for the government to make more than 15 appointments in a year. In the UK, there are about 3,500 judicial office holders and the Lord Chancellor was responsible for an enormous number of appointments—far more than the Commonwealth Attorney-General would ever have to consider. With that number of appointments, it may well be that a judicial commission could have some benefit, and that is why the United Kingdom situation is quite different from what we have in Australia, where judicial appointments range across state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions. We believe the process that we have is transparent and has worked well, and that is evidenced by the fact that we have an excellent federal judiciary.