To the above poster what has that got to do with this piece.

AS for my comment on this piece, a US-Style is the last thing we want.
"It has been criticised for deterring the finest legal minds putting themselves forward for nomination, to avoid having their personal lives exposed."

you need not go any futher then that. Kirby has been a excellent high court judge there is no way he would have got into the position if we had a US-style hearings. Then again is that what the author is getting at.

All senior public servants, including judges, should be subjected to open, public scrutiny. Many of them, particularly judges, have more unbridled power over our lives and activities than do the people we elect to represent us. The latter are subject to grilling regularly, even daily; the former are like members of an exclusive club, behind whose doors the rest of us are not allowed.

I agree with James' proposition. There needs to be much more done to improve transparency of government - this is not a left/right thing but has to do with the secrecy of any incumbent government machinations and decision making.

By making significant appointments such as high judges a totally transparent process the general electorate will more easily see those elected officials that are doing what is best for Australia vs the jobs for the boys mentality that would seem to creep into secret proceedings. Furthermore, as James points out, the side benefit of having the population more educated as to judicial process would be significant. I think there is more of an understanding in Aus of the US judicial system than there is of the Aus system thanks to Judge Judy and Law and Order

Yes EnerGee has been doing the rounds today its seems.

I can only agree about the remarkable work done Justice Kirby who at times seems the sole voice of reason of the High Court. We certainly need more such appointments that provide a judicial voice for the disenfranchised. The author - with whatever agenda he has - should himself be wary of throwing stones - maybe while we're at it we could also have an independent review committee for comfy tenured academics? If only...

Leigh,

In a coincidental twist, the High Court appeared at Senate Estimates this very morning, perhaps even as you were posting. The High Court, the Federal Court, the Family Court, and the Magistrates Service all appear before the Senate in Estimates to give an account of the way they are operating and administering their responsibilities. There was for instance a very interesting discussion this morning between Senator Joe Ludwig (Qld) and the Registrar of the High Court about the way in which unrepresented litigants are treated in the Court. You can read all about it in Hansard tomorrow, at www.aph.gov.au

I think we can probably all agree that these sorts of parliamentary discussions about the High Court as an *institution* are perfectly in order, whereas a parliamentary grilling of why a judge made a particular judgement would be out of order and improper.

My only concern about a process of parliamentary assessment of judges is that it would end up being character assassination. What if, as a compromise, the hearing itself were held in camera, but the final report to the Senate was made public?

Cheers

Anth

stormont - sole voice of reason?

Justice Kirby has been reported as being opposed to a financial penalty against someone who conducted deliberate fraud becuase to do so might cause indirect harm to her children.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18928924-32522,00.html
Janet Albrechtsen

"Kirby suggests that the "best interests of the child" test applies for the simple reason that this case involves the depletion of family income: were Liam Magill to win, Meredith Magill would be forced to pay. It's a novel argument. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would prevent any legal action against any person who also happens to be a parent. After all, any legal payout drains the family income to the detriment of a child."

A very twisted kind of reason if what is reported bears any resemblence to his actual views.

I've not followed his other work closely but if that kind of logic is representative of his work I certainly like to have seen some substantial public grilling of his attitudes and approach prior to his appointment to such an important position.

R0bert