I read Mr Hoffmans earlier article on judges and accountability and had a hard job believing that judges could get away with the sort of behavior he said. Its interesting Rob Hulls has decided to change the complaint system though. Perhaps Mr hoffman was right? I see back then Mr Hoffman also referred to judges as public servants. Whats the chief judges problem with being called a public servant?

I would assume that the CJ's rejection of the appellation 'public servant' derives from the view that a public servant forms part of the govermental bureaucracy, is answerable to their departmental heads and through them to the relevant Minister - ie they are essentially an arm of Executive Government. Naturally the CJ takes the view that the judges are an instrument of the Judiciary - a seperate arm of power under the traditional triumvirate of Legislative, Judicial and Executive.
Of course, one could argue that the judiciary are already highly accountable through the appeals process. Judicial decision-making is regularly the subject of review through this process with judges often being overturned on appeal. Of course, not every bad decision gets appealed and appeals are often costly.

It doesnt matter what the CJs problem is it doesnt get round the fact that if you serve the public you are a public servant. I dont know that judges are "highly accountable" through the appeals process. If Mr hoffman was right in his earlier article a bad trial judge can easily fool the appeals process.

With respect Jaco, you seem to have correctly identified that the argument is merely definitional.
If we accept your definition - that a public servant is anyone who serves the public - then everyone is a public servant, from the Head of the Health Department through to McDonald's workers and Westpac call-centre employees. Stretching the definition in this way makes the term somewhat meaningless - how many people would seriously consider their local shopkeepers public servants?

To argue about who is or isn’t a public servant, is meaningless unless you work from a definition. The fact judges belong to a different arm of government from people in Public Health is no argument for claiming judges are not public servants, but if I’m reading this correctly that’s just a distraction. It seems the real issue is Rob Hulls is not happy with the judicial complaint scheme and wants to change it to make judges more accountable. I suggest J S Mill read Mr Hoffman’s earlier article as I just have (thanks Jaco) and he will see why.

JS Mill is confusing 'serve' as in 'sell or provide' with 'serve' as in 'work for'. My worry is that if Mr hoffman is right and judges can easily cheat the appeals process then if theres no proper complaint system they dont have to account to anyone. Surely this is why Rob Hulls is going to change the system for complaining about judges conduct.

That judges are public servants and therefore accountable both to the public and the parliament I believe is correct. Other department that have this “privilege”, but are accountable to the parliament.
However, the system’s structure is to make the judicial system autonomous and independent of political interference. This has failed as the appointees are often political appointment.
This is the public concern. VCAT is a typical case in point.
Originally setup to as the adjudicator in cases where there were community concerns.
It has now been high jacked by the legal profession and has almost become as costly as the normal judicial system, failing its original objective.
One major flaw is that decisions are generally made on points of law and not really on public concern. While some people sitting on the bench have legal training, most have limited knowledge or understanding of the issues being raised. One could argue that those who have a certain expertise, it originated when they first qualified and they have not updated their knowledge.
As a community Advocate, cases where I have been involved, resulted in legal decisions, not social justice decisions. The public concerns were given little credence and basically ignored and the companies' application approved. Later these public concerns proved to be correct.
Until the law is changed to provide the same weight for community concerns as for legal argument, otherwise, it fails to provide justice.
VCAT has become too costly for the little people; Companies employ "big gun" lawyers and barristers at a cost beyond the average people.
Even the government has stepped in, in favour of those who can pay, with departments playing an obstructive role when the public request information, citing the "commercial and confidential clause", misusing the FOI or increasing fees and charges.
The result is the developer/company gets what it wanted despite council and community objections.
Many council appear to avoid making decisions of importance to local government planning and the community interests, knowing that a decision not favourable to the vested interest will go to VCAT and likely overturned in favour of the company or developer.