Anth, I see your point, but it would be nice for the subjects to have some say in the rulings our masters hand down.
That, or some say in who is handing them down. I know we elect the pollys, but its a bit of a long bow to say that gives us a say in who, or what, the judges are.

I disagree with the use of US Election styles and methods to appoint Juges In Australia.

As has already been mentioned Justice Kirby has played a significant role and I dont belive he would be appointed in a climate where 'private lives' are the basis of questioning.

I dont think its right to question prospective judges about their views on euthenasia and abortion ( things which have happened in the USA) this would result in political appointments.

An interesting comparison comes from Germany where judges are recruited from university and their is a spit profession of lawyers and judges.

In comparison I think our system is superior to both those of Germany and the USA.

What I would like to see is improved legal aid services by allowing people who undertake a law degree to pay of the HELP(HECS) Debt by working credits on legal aid work.

Guy

guy faulk, doesn't our current system result in political appointments anyway? It seems from what I know of the system that whoever is in power at the time that a vacancy comes up puts people in who are likely to hold views which are in line with the leader of the days views (to greater or lesser degree's). Thankfully many of those appointees will rise above that and try to do a good job anyway, others will not be able to see past their own agenda's and biases.

A public review process might help weed out some of the more extreme cases by exposing their views to scrutiny.

R0bert

Thanks RObert

while the current appointment process does involve a political element i would venture to say it does not extend to anywhere near that of the USA. We have far greater separation of state and judiciary.
(even if there are no South Australian High Court Judges)
Another point that I think needs to be considered is the popularity aproach with American appointments. (it is this sense that i also consider a form of politics too)
The most positive point about the USA system is their Bill of RIghts.

guy faulk, didn't George W have a prefered candidate knocked back/withdraw recently? I've not followed the workings of either system closely but as an outsider the US system seems to provide a mechanism for external scrutiny where ours seems to be pretty much in the hands of whoever holds power at the time (unless the media runs a smear campaign).

R0bert

RObert,

You're right that we have political appointments, and from time to time they have been overtly political (remember Tim Fischer announcing that he wanted to appoint a "Capital C Conservative"? Then they appointed the rather alliterative Capital C Conservative Callinan!).

In reality, however, it can't ever just be a straightforward "jobs for the boys" situation in the way that an ambassadorship can. HC judges are almost inevitably judges from the superior court benches around the country. It's been thirty years now since a politician Attorney General was appointed to the bench (Murphy). So the pool of available candidates is relatively small and relatively well qualified.

If you wanted to make the appointment process *less* political then, of course, the last thing you'd want to do is hold public hearings where judges were grilled by politicians.

It does however open up the wider question of how judges should be selected for appointment. My own view is that a college should be put together: perhaps the Chief Justices of all Superior Courts, all state and federal Attorneys General, all Law Reform Commissioners and the Presidents of each bar association. Then they could make the choice behind closed doors.

You're right in that Bush had a judge knocked back recently but it was pretty blatant: the president can't appoint their personal lawyer to the Supreme Court and expect to get away with it. Bush is such a doofus.

One final question: why are we worrying about this? Have we had any notable incidents of High Court judges behaving badly? Even at the Supreme Court level, would hearings or different selection processes have picked up somebody with a sleeping disorder or mild alcoholism? Are the decisions which are being handed down so shockingly poor that we need major reform?