Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:59): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   unlike some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, Victoria does not have an independent judicial appointment commission;

(2)   in some Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as Canada, senior judicial appointments can appear before parliamentary committees for a non-binding public hearing;

(3)   allowing a non-binding public hearing process for new senior judicial appointments would increase public scrutiny and trust in the judicial system;

and calls on the Attorney-General to establish a new process whereby prospective senior judicial appointments will be invited to appear before an appropriate parliamentary committee for a public hearing prior to appointment.

I would like to just talk about some of the background here of why I am talking about this and starting this conversation. The justice system is a miracle of Western civilisation in some ways. Originally the justice system was just kings and feudal lords dispensing justice, and whether or not they did a good job of that is up for debate and depends on the king and the feudal lord that you were under. But we managed to evolve to a point where, at least in theory, we like to think that we have an independent judiciary. In fact this was discussed during the drafting of Australia’s constitution. It was something that was discussed at large. But as with all systems, it requires reform, and it evolves over time. As I have pointed out in my motion, if you look at similar Commonwealth countries, you will see that the majority of them have evolved beyond what Victoria and most jurisdictions in Australia do.

What is quite common is to have something such as an independent judicial committee, and what this does is it totally separates from government the process of appointing judges and other officials. I am not proposing that we do that today, because I know that is a very large thing and would actually require changes to Victoria’s constitution and a whole bunch of other things. But I think we all should acknowledge that the process that we have in Victoria compared to such jurisdictions as, say, Canada, is a very opaque process. There have been, if you look at commentary in the media and indeed in just talking to constituents, concerns about some of the decisions that are made by the judiciary. I think it is very important not only that judicial appointments fair and unbiased but also that the public has the perception that they are fair and unbiased. Because of the opaque nature that we have in Victoria, there is a risk that that may not be the case.

In Canada they have a system whereby part of that process is that the appointees appear before a special parliamentary committee and they are able to be questioned. I know that some people have concerns about this process because they are worried; they see the operation of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and other committees and they do not feel that they are very helpful. But I might note that in Canada this works quite well. What they do to alleviate this is they have very strict terms of reference for this so that the appointees can only be asked about a very narrow range of subjects directly related to their role. The committee does not have a decision-making role in this process, and I am not proposing that any parliamentary committee would have a decision-making role. But what it would do is set up incentives in the system that would, I hope, bring about more trust in the justice system, because they know that at least the appointees have had some sort of public scrutiny and can be asked questions that many people in the public might want to ask by members of Parliament. I think that this is a sensible and fairly modest change to the system.

I know that some people might be concerned. They look at the American system, which is quite different to ours and is in fact quite different to many Commonwealth countries, and they might argue that this politicises the system. I would argue and many would argue that the system is already politicised. I think that in fact having this sort of scrutiny would depoliticise the appointments and set up incentives that would make it a better system.

Regardless of whether or not this motion passes today or whether the government agrees to it or not, I think it is important to start this conversation. I think it is important that Victoria considers the types of reforms that have been carried out in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. There are many examples that we can look to: the United Kingdom underwent major reforms early in the 21st century, I have already spoken about Canada and there are many other examples of this type of reform. I believe that in the UK the trust in the judicial system is very high due to the reforms that they have carried out there.

I will not say much more on that, but I urge people to consider the importance of this, how important it is to maintain trust in the judicial system. This small, modest change I believe will increase trust in the system and add some level of scrutiny and transparency on the appointment process that does not exist currently.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:05): I rise to make a contribution on this motion by Mr Limbrick. Yes, the government opposes this motion. I think I will start right there. I was just reading the form of the motion and the content and also listening to Mr Limbrick’s contribution. As someone who is admitted as a lawyer and has practised and been before courts representing people, I have a deep concern about this motion; really, about the Trumpian nature of it, to say that somehow our judicial system is biased, I am very concerned about that. I would also draw the chamber’s attention to standing order 12.18, because I just think we need to be very careful about how this debate and this motion is phrased and what it is intending or trying to do. I will not read it out for the chamber other than just to say that if there is an accusation to be made, it should be done by a substantive motion, and it covers members of Parliament of either house, the sovereign, the governor, or a judicial officer.

I think the problem is that bringing this kind of motion is a bit of a dog whistle to what is happening in the States, where there is a constant call about what is happening over there in how they appoint judges. In Australia we have a different system for doing that and there are very good reasons as to why that is. It is a very robust process. What is concerning to me is that to just suggest that somehow we do not have a robust process that appoints the best people to our courts – because I listened very carefully to what Mr Limbrick was saying, and I think Mr Limbrick was saying that people do not have confidence in the courts, but that is based on outcomes or sentences. That is not necessarily a function of a judicial officer. If people have concern about sentences, that is because judges consider the facts that are brought before them in any particular case, they apply the law to the facts, obviously the law that applies, and then come up with a sentence or a determination, whatever. There is civil and criminal, but I am assuming Mr Limbrick is mostly talking about criminal.

But inherent in anybody being appointed as a judge, any person who is appointed as a judge in Victoria has many, many years and decades of experience, often many years experience as a senior lawyer and often as a barrister. So despite what Mr Limbrick says, there is a process that is quite robust. It starts with the Attorney-General seeking expressions of interest from qualified people for judicial positions in court. You have to be admitted as a lawyer, first of all, to practice as a lawyer, and there is a test you have to pass in order to be admitted. It is not just that any person can be admitted, you have to have attained your bachelor of laws and done your practical legal training. Then once you are admitted, you can practice as a lawyer. So first of all, you have to be a lawyer. Then after that there is consultation that takes place. The Attorney-General consults with the Chief Justice and relevant court and other legal experts. The Attorney-General then makes a recommendation for appointment, which is submitted to the executive council for approval, and then the Governor and the Attorney-General sign a commission to formalise that appointment.

So there is a robust process, and it is based on who is most suitably qualified. Like I said, there would be years and years and years, sometimes 20–30 years of legal practice and training that has gone into that person, either as a lawyer or a barrister, and then they would be appointed to the court. These people are eminently worthy of appointment and eminently qualified and skilled.

I think what is really dangerous about this motion is it is casting aspersions on our judiciary as being something that might be open to bias; of course if there is any concern about particular judges, there are forums and places to deal with those sorts of things. But again, this is like trying to dog whistle to the Trumpian enthusiasts saying that we have some kind of problem in our judiciary, and we do not. So again, appointees undergo rigorous probity and criminal history checks, ASIC insolvency searches, conflict of interest declarations and character checks through the Victorian Legal Services Board and commissioner. There are comprehensive safeguards, so I find this a very, very concerning motion.

With Mr Limbrick’s motion I know in his comments he pointed to other jurisdictions, and he did raise the UK, and if you look at what has happened in the UK the evidence there is actually mixed. In the UK the move to a commission introduced cost and delay without clear proof of better outcomes as well. The public confirmation hearings as proposed by this motion risk delay, politicisation and reputational damage to candidates, all of which are unlikely to increase public confidence in appointees and the institutions they are appointed to; it is likely to do the opposite. So politicising appointments to our judiciary is just really not something that we want in our democracy here in Australia. As I said, we operate several recruitment processes for judicial officers, magistrates and VCAT members; they are all appointed through a formal merit-based process. So again, I think what the motion fails to do is actually tease out what Mr Limbrick is actually trying to say. I am assuming you are trying to say that people are not happy with sentencing outcomes; that is a far cry from trying to say that there is some kind of bias or problem with the way judges are appointed. Judicial appointments in Victoria support the independence and integrity and capability of the judiciary. As I said, they are eminently skilled and qualified people, and there are obviously processes, if there are any concerns with particular judges, for those things to be activated or pursued. But again, to kind of go down this dog whistle path that is happening in America is just not something that has any place in our Australian jurisdiction.

I will just talk quickly about the judicial appointment process. There is a rigorous process, and as I said before, a widespread net is cast to attract the best and most skilled and qualified applicants. Appointments to the Magistrates’ Court and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal all involve an open and competitive recruitment process. Public recruitment campaigns are conducted when there are vacancies, and the process consists of expressions of interest and applications for formal interview. So again, it is not something that is conducted in secret; it is quite open and transparent. The relevant head of the jurisdiction then makes a recommendation to the Attorney-General on proposed candidates. Again, there is a rigorous process – nothing secretive about it. The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are made following consultation between the Chief Justice and Attorney-General, with the Attorney-General making a recommendation to the Governor in Council.

So as I said, there is a process whereby with all judges there are background checks and character checks to determine whether there are any issues. As I said, character checks can often reveal information about any investigations, complaints or inquiries made against that person or about that person’s conduct, their behaviour or their character. It is a very strict test. I had to pass it, and people might say that is debateable, but it is a very strict test. You have to disclose everything and anything that has ever been questioned about your character, and then and only then are you admitted to practise as a legal practitioner in this jurisdiction. So it is something that requires a very high standard of character. Getting back to the character check, for example, it could reveal any disciplinary outcomes that the person might have faced by the legal services board, and it could include any formal warning or reprimand by the legal services board, additional training or counselling that may have been recommended, disciplinary charges or a legally binding determination that might include remedial action, and sometimes those things could include recommendations of further training and that sort of thing.

Again, the potential candidates are all referred to the framework of judicial abilities and qualities for Victorian judicial officers. This has been developed by the Judicial College of Victoria, which outlines the attributes that government, courts and the community expect from judicial appointees. So there is a robust process around the way in which we recruit and look for judicial appointments and appoint them. It is quite robust, and I have set out, I think, the framework that adequately describes how those things happen. I understand Mr Limbrick’s wont, being a libertarian, to kind of change things and up the ante and look at different processes. I understand that, but this is a motion that does not do that. This is a motion that is just really dog whistling to the Trumpian conspiracy theorists, and it is very disappointing that we have to debate this in this chamber today.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:16): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion. It sets out to call on the government Attorney-General to establish a process and points out a few other examples regarding judicial public hearings. I can understand the intent of Mr Limbrick’s motion while respectfully disagreeing with it. The Liberals and Nationals will be opposing this motion. I oppose the motion because, while well intentioned, it risks undermining a core pillar of our democracy, and that pillar is of course the separation of powers. It is a principle that ensures the independence of the judiciary, the integrity of our legal system and the confidence that Victorians can place in the courts.

The motion points out that Victoria does not have an independent judicial appointments commission. It also refers to practices in other jurisdictions, including Canada, where some senior judicial nominees appear before committees for non-binding public hearings. These are interesting comparisons, but they do not reflect the constitutional structure in which our state operates. Victoria has never adopted a system of judicial confirmation hearings, and I think that is for a good reason. In Victoria, and indeed Australia, it is the executive branch that is charged with appointing judges because it is the executive branch that is accountable for the overall functioning of the justice system. This is the accountability that protects the judiciary from political interference.

The government would probably privately acknowledge that there are certain judicial decisions that have not met community expectations. We were told the last lot of bail reforms were the toughest, but supposedly we are going to be here on the final sitting week talking about further reforms in this space because they were not the toughest. We saw, after the government passed the toughest bail laws, the judicial handbook basically ignoring the government’s legislation because the government did not do enough of a job at writing that legislation. As the member for Malvern said, the loopholes were so big in that bill you could drive a stolen car through it. But it is the executive that is accountable for passing laws around this state that our judges can interpret, and that is really the fail safe in our system, and it protects the judiciary from political interference.

Especially in politics in Victoria and Australia you often get people trying to make comparisons with American politics that are not culturally the right fit for Victoria. They do not have the social licence needed to get acceptance in Victoria. But because it is like America it is constantly discussed. We see it on the left and the right as well. All of the university campus types in Australia and other interest groups on the left say, ‘We shouldn’t follow America. We don’t like America. We don’t like American culture. We need to form our own different culture.’ Then any time there is a protest movement in the US about any particular sort of left-wing issue, it is immediately adopted on university campuses and across the intellectual left in Australia. But we also see it on the right. Just because an idea has come from America or you see it playing out in America does not mean it is an idea we should instantly take up here. We have a system by and large that has accountability and integrity, and the separation of powers, particularly in our justice system, is just too important for this kind of interference. Like the government probably privately acknowledges, people can be pretty gobsmacked by some judicial decisions. I would argue that that is on the government, and that is on the government because of the laws that they pass in this place. We need to make sure that our laws meet community expectations so that when judges are making decisions, their decisions meet community expectations, and they know through the laws that we pass in this place what the community expectations are. Governments are elected to make these kinds of decisions and need to be accountable for those decisions as well.

The independence of the judiciary is not an abstract concept. It is a practical safeguard that allows judges to decide matters without fear or favour and without fear that they might be called before some upper house inquiry. If we undermine that safeguard, we invite parliamentary committees to sit in judgement over prospective appointments. It also, I think, would create a chilling effect for the judiciary. I do not think it is a step we want to go down to apply that chilling effect of politicians onto our judges. We are here to make the laws that they interpret. We are not here to tell them how they should interpret the laws. The current system serves Victoria well. Our courts enjoy strong public confidence. I think you can see the lack of confidence in the Victorian community, let us say particularly around bail and crime, is not with the courts, it is with the government. The government cannot throw up their hands and say it was not their decision while their laws have allowed for that decision. This is the separation of powers that we have here in this state. It is for these reasons that we will not support this motion. We absolutely respect the intent, but we will not compromise on the separation of powers. We will continue to uphold the principle that the executive appoints judges and that the judiciary remains free of political interference. That is how we protect the strength, integrity and independence of Victoria’s justice system.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:24): I rise to enthusiastically support this. There are a number of things I am going to go through; there were a couple of rich contributions to help me. First of all, this is not a Trumpian thing. I can guarantee you that 29 years ago, when I first got involved in the practical application of law enforcement, the very issue that we are talking about now was an issue then. Since I left that and went off and did my own thing and ended up here, I have always paid attention to it. It was an issue and still is an issue. I do not like using the words ‘carry on’, but they are the best I have got about questioning the system, the status quo. The pushback we are getting is quite extraordinary. I think this motion is nothing more than questioning the way we do things, and I think that is always a good thing. Whether the outcome means a change or not is a very different thing. You label it Trumpian dog whistling – I respect your intent and all that sort of stuff – but I think I would reject the American system of electing judges at the moment. I do not think we are even close to being ready for that. I do think that saying the judiciary is actually independent is a bit of a stretch, but it has been said a couple of times by the speakers.

The judiciary is appointed by the Attorney-General. Whether you like it or not, there is instantly a political implication to that. It does not matter which side they are from – I am not blaming the government or the opposition or when they were in government and all that sort of thing – but the reality of it is the government of the day will generally promote someone that they feel is probably more aligned with their values. It is just natural. So I completely support not having the government interfere in the judicial proceedings. That is only appropriate. That is the separation of powers. I do not even think there was a comment made regarding dragging a judicial officer, whose outcome on something we did not like, before a committee. I do not think that is proposed. I do not think that is even in the orbit of this thing. But the government makes the laws, and the laws these days are pretty rubbery. You work on the intent, and the judiciary goes off and does it.

One thing I will agree with is what I think Ms Terpstra said – it is my main problem – on sentencing. Whether someone is guilty or innocent, there are established processes; for those presenting evidence to the courts, it is for them to follow the processes. Could the processes be better? Yes, but they are what we have to work with. In fact one of the comments made by Mr Mulholland was the judicial handbook ignoring the bail changes recently. That is a problem. How we deal with it I am not proposing to get into here, but there is a problem. I have been following closely the Hannah McGuire murder trial, which only came to fruition yesterday or the day before. Twenty-eight years for the murder of a young woman is just not enough – it is absolutely not enough. The sentences for murder in this state are wildly inappropriate. You are taking someone’s life, particularly in this case it was a young woman. If you read the details, he just wanted to possess her and he could not, so this is how he fixed it, and then he spent a lot of time trying to hide it. In 28 years – he is only a young bloke – he will be out. He will be younger than I am, and he will be free. Hannah McGuire and her family will never be free. So there is a lot of work to be done; there is a heap of work to be done.

I do not see why such there is such a furore at questioning how we appoint the judiciary. It is not proposing a change as such. It notes that and calls on the Attorney-General to establish a new process. Well, it does not say what process; it just says ‘invited to appear before an appropriate parliamentary committee’. I think we hear a lot about transparency in this place, and this is not against any particular judicial officer, and I will also point out that raising a substantive motion against any particular judicial officer is kind of completely pointless when you are not accusing any particular judicial officer, but I do not think it is wrong to question things. That is how we move forward. That is how, as a society, we change.

I think it is telling that two other Commonwealth countries have had a change, for better or for worse. At some point in time they have had a think about this and moved. The mother country, if you will, and Canada have done it. Canada is in a fairly similar place to us, I guess, with their attitude towards progressive causes – going to the same place, the same sort of ways. I am just disappointed in the tone of what we are getting. Back in the old days, long before I was worrying about this, it was the case that clerks of the courts would work their way through their school and would become a lay judge – I forget the particular term for it – and that introduced an element of the common person to it. They did not go from school to uni to practise doing God knows what particularly and then into the judiciary. They worked – they did this, they did that. I am casting a wide brush here. I know a lot of lawyers that are ex-coppers. They have gone and got a degree and moved on. I personally think they would probably make great magistrates or judges. I think there is at least one out there that may have been, but I am getting away from the thing.

I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with questioning the status quo. It is not Trumpian. This is well before Trumpian politics. It is just something that has been going on forever. I truly think that sentencing is the problem here, and for how we address it, I do not have the answers. I just think it needs to be addressed. I get the feeling that it is going to be Mr Limbrick and me standing up in support of this, but I am quite proud to be.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:32): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion calling on the Attorney-General to establish a process whereby prospective senior judicial appointments will be invited to appear before an appropriate parliamentary committee for a public hearing prior to appointment. I just wanted to start with a little bit of a reflection on something I agree with Mr Bourman on in his contribution. He said that he does not think it is wrong to question things, and I think that is true. I reflected on this in a debate last week, that we should never be uncritical of the way our institutions work. We should never be beholden to something because it is the only way that something has been done, but when we think about how things work, when we question, we need to think about what the alternatives are. I think this is an example where what the questioning of something – a process or a system – demonstrates is that the alternatives would leave us in a far worse position than the practice and the processes that we have currently in place. I think there has been a little bit of that elucidated in the debate today, but I want to get into that a little bit more.

To change something like the process for making senior judicial appointments in the state of Victoria, we need a demonstration that there has been, I think, some fundamental errors and fundamental flaws in that process and that the proposed approach would both fix those flaws and lead to better outcomes, and I do not think that Mr Limbrick’s proposal that is contained in the call for the Attorney-General in this motion achieves any of those things. I think instead what it would mark would be a departure from a practice which has, on the whole, served our community well and would set us on a path that has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions to not serve their community well. I think on that basis the proposal is not one worthy of support, and the government will not be supporting the motion today.

The judiciary plays an incredibly important role in the functioning of our democracy. The commitment to upholding the rule of law is fundamental to our democratic processes. It is one of the components of a separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judicial branches that has enabled our democracy to thrive and survive over the last – well, it depends how you want to characterise how long we have had full democracy here in Victoria, but certainly in the institutions that have existed in this state since the establishment of self-government 170-odd years ago.

The way that we approach the appointment of judicial officers in Victoria is obviously something that that at its fundamental level retains its basic characteristics that have existed throughout that time, which is that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the executive, having been elected by the people democratically, makes recommendations to the Governor for judicial appointments. What we have in Victoria at the moment – reflecting the need for particularly our magistrates and VCAT members to be open and accessible and the need to have a process that is broader and enables more participation – is we have a formal, merit-based process with open public advertisements, recruitment panels, interviews and independent advice from the department as well as the independent court and tribunal for those decisions. For higher court appointments the practice that we have here in Victoria is that appointments to the various higher courts are made in consultation with the heads of jurisdiction and appointees go through fairly rigorous probity checks – criminal history, insolvency searches, declarations for conflicts of interest and checks through the Legal Services Board and commissioner – which provide a comprehensive suite of safeguards against the prospect of someone for whom, whilst they may be formally qualified, there are other aspects which make them unsuitable for appointment. We have processes that are in place in order to deal with that.

The question that we have to ask is whether adding an invitation for prospective appointees to appear before a parliamentary committee would improve that process. I just do not think that it would, because whilst appointments are made on the recommendation of the Attorney-General – made by a democratically elected government, as it should be in our democracy that governments elected by the people make a range of appointments and decisions and then once those appointments are made the judiciary operates independently – what you would do, I think and worryingly, and this is something that has been called out by other members in their contributions to this debate, is you would, as part of that committee interrogation, subject these individuals to having to answer questions that members might pose to them about matters of law or legal interpretation to sway whether they feel that they are a suitable appointment or not.

I think what we can see, particularly in the way in the US federal system appointments are made by the President with the consent of the Senate, is that that judicial appointment and vetting process and public hearing process has generated a much more politicised approach to senior judicial appointments in the federal jurisdiction in the United States than we see here in Australia. I do not think the US federal system is better than what we have here in Victoria on a whole range of measures but particularly firstly on instilling public confidence in the judicial system and secondly on trying to ensure that senior judicial officers are making reasoned and learned decisions based on principles of law absent of partisan considerations.

I think the encroachment of partisan considerations in federal appointments into the US system is a net negative for them and it would be a net negative for us.

The other question I have really is on the wording of Mr Limbrick’s motion, whether there is actually going to be an invite delivered to these appointees or whether it is going to be a summons. Because that is not clear – whether we are inviting people to attend a hearing process or whether we are requiring them to attend a process. If the proposal is not insisting and if the process is not issuing a summons, then one must wonder what teeth it really has, what purpose it really has and what the purpose of that is. Because if we really insist that it is required, then I think it is probably incumbent upon us to be using our powers to do it. I do not think it is, but it was a curious word that struck me in the wording of the motion as to what an invitation meant. That is certainly I think something that probably needs to be explored a little further.

Hopefully I have outlined a little bit about the things that concern me about this process and why it is not a kneejerk reaction that I have got against it. It is I think a quite considered objection to the implications of what involvement of parliamentary committees in the judicial process would do, and I will not be supporting the motion.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:42): I just want to thank Mr Limbrick for his motion. I would just like to start off by noting yet again the fact that our colleagues on the other side of this chamber, often sometimes when they even do have a good argument, are so used to attacking the person because they cannot win an argument that they revert back to it again. I just saw that today. It is actually very lazy and disrespectful and frankly an embarrassment to public office. Mr Limbrick deserves better than the way he was just treated. Any conversation about transparency in the judiciary, in our justice system, is by definition worthy of debate in this place. It is not disappointing to have to debate how we can improve justice, even if we disagree on the methods. It is not dangerous to debate how to improve justice. It is not dog whistling to debate how we improve justice, unless of course deep down you are opposed to justice. So I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this motion. He did it in good faith and he made some very valid points, one of which is that the independence of the judiciary is essential and that it does not maintain itself. Transparency does not equal criticism.

The other point has been made well that the judiciary are appointed to interpret the laws that we make here and that we are the ones that have very important powers to influence justice in this state. But as we have all seen, the judiciary are also supposed to honour community expectations and they are supposed to honour and interpret the laws that we make in the spirit in which we make them. We just saw the massive scandal in the news where the judiciary made their own handbook, using weasel words trying to get around the bail laws that we had just passed in this Parliament. That is a disgrace. What has this government done to make sure that that does not continue to happen? A government that will not look at that issue to ensure justice is a government that is not interested in justice.

When we come to community expectations and sentencing in particular – thank you, Mr Bourman, for that – I agree, this is all about sentencing. Sentencing for serious crimes in this state is completely against community expectations. If you look at sentencing for the serious sexual assault of children, report after report after report shows that the sentencing is so weak that it is offensive to the majority of people who look at it. They are outraged when they find out that child sex predators get weaselly little sentences. They get given consideration because their raping of a two-year-old was not premeditated; it was a crime of opportunity. What does that mean? That is a quote from a judge.

There is plenty of injustice in this state. It is not a topic to dismiss out of hand. Mr Limbrick finished his motion with an invitation for a conversation about how this is important and how we can improve it. The fact that people on the other side then proceeded to lecture Mr Limbrick about how judges actually have law degrees – I mean, it so ridiculous, what I just heard on the other side. Sometimes I think that there is some kind of roboticism over there and you cannot even hear yourselves. We rely on judges to do their job in the public interest, in line with community expectations and in line with the interests of justice. I was very fortunate in my case to have a judge who was just, but for all these little people out there, the victims of crime, if they are so fortunate as to have had enough evidence of their crime even happening that they made it all the way to court, it is not too much to ask that every single effort is made, no single stone is left unturned and every single accountability measure is looked at in order to make sure that the judges they get, with the final say on the justice or injustice that will ruin their lives or help heal them from an injustice, are actually addressed and thought through. While I may not agree with the actual proposal, at least I am taking it seriously, because that is our job.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:47): I also rise to give a contribution on behalf of the Victorian Greens to Mr Limbrick’s motion today. I will state at the outset that the Greens will not be supporting this motion, but I want to spend some time going through some of the points that Mr Limbrick has raised, because it is an important topic and it has been pleasing to hear a mostly constructive and respectful debate today.

I want to start with a topic that has been canvassed in several members’ contributions, which is the importance of the separation of powers. It is a fundamental tenet of democracies and of our democracy, and one that we should all be alive to the importance of. Though it is a time honoured and well established principle, it is vital every day in this place. It ensures, essentially, that no individual person or group or individual branch of government – the legislature, the executive or the judiciary – has too much power, and that those branches have distinct and independent powers and responsibilities. It is commonly referred to as a check and a balance, but equally an important part of the doctrine of the separation of powers is ensuring that no one branch of government can dominate the others or act outside its authority and is helping prevent abuses of power. Another element of the importance of the separation of powers is promoting transparency and accountability, such as reporting to the public and other branches on the activities of that particular body, which helps to ensure that decisions are made, and seen to be made, in the best interests of the public.

These headline principles are incredibly important in maintaining the independence of the judiciary and therefore the trust of the public in the judicial system. That is why I thought it would be really important in my contribution today to counter a little bit of what I have heard. I think that Mr Limbrick’s motion as put forward is one that has been crafted sensibly and brought in goodwill to this place, and I want to engage with it diligently.

However, while we might concur on the first point of his motion just noting that there are different approaches across Commonwealth jurisdictions to the appointment of judges, I think perhaps we will disagree on the appropriate response to that. I think that what I have heard from some members’ contributions today confirms the suspicion that there is a mischief behind this motion as well, that there is an attempt to cast doubt on the independence of the judiciary, on the adequacy of their performance of their role, and I really want to soundly reject that today.

I thought it might be useful, given the context of the separation of powers that I have spoken about, to talk about some of the current effective measures that we do have which currently review and hold the members of the judiciary to account in Victoria. I will just note that I am drawing, in my comments on this topic, from a paper produced by Parliament called Parliament and the Courts: Separation of Powers – Summary Notes, which are notes from a conversation held here at Parliament in March 2023 with members of the judiciary and from this branch of government as well, the legislature. Currently we do have the Judicial Commission of Victoria, which does not participate in appointments but is –

… an independent body responsible for investigating complaints about the conduct or capacity of judicial officers in Victoria, including judges and magistrates. The Commission investigates complaints and provides recommendations to the relevant authority about any necessary disciplinary action.

VCAT also has a role in reviewing legal disputes, including disputes relating to the conduct of legal practitioners and judges. There are powers for VCAT to hear and decide direct complaints against judges and magistrates. We of course also have the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, responsible for regulating the legal profession in Victoria, including the conduct of individual practitioners.

The Board + Commissioner has the power to investigate complaints about the conduct of lawyers, including those who appear before judges and magistrates, and to take disciplinary action if necessary.

And really importantly, given some of the comments that have been made in this debate today, we actually do have the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria. The Sentencing Advisory Council provides a very important role. It produces research, statistics and education about sentencing in Victoria, and the idea of that is to bridge the gap between the community, the courts and the government. We do have bodies that scrutinise sentencing practices. I will note the continuing practice today of some members of pulling out individual sentencing decisions that they may personally disagree with. I would argue that this is a really good example of why we need these independent bodies to provide an overall view of the performance of the judiciary and why we should as responsible members of this chamber look to the guidance of that council which already exists.

There are a number of independent watchdogs and mechanisms that currently provide oversight and accountability for the judiciary in Victoria, and they are designed to ensure that there are really high standards of professional conduct, that the public has confidence in the integrity and, importantly, in the impartiality of the judicial system. Of course there are also independent watchdogs, including the Ombudsman and our IBAC, and these provide oversight and accountability over the actions of all branches of government, designed to investigate and expose corruption, misconduct, and maladministration within the public sector. I just wanted to contribute some context for the high levels of scrutiny and independence that are currently guaranteed by our independent bodies here in Victoria.

Turning to the subject of Mr Limbrick’s motion, which is around the appointment of people to these roles, it is very interesting actually that, in the complaints that have been levelled by people who have sympathy with what Mr Limbrick is suggesting, a lot of the perceived ills are in the practice of executing the role rather than in the appointment process. I think it would tend to suggest that there is actually not so much an issue with the current process of judicial appointments.

Here in Victoria judicial officers are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, so there is an element of the government of the day having influence in the appointment of officers to the judiciary. However, there are a lot of processes and guidelines around the selection of candidates for that process. The Department of Justice and Community Safety oversees that process, collecting appropriate expressions of interest, ensuring that people are aware of the requirements and expertise needed for the role and vetting candidates before that shortlist is presented to the Attorney-General for recommendation.

Mr Limbrick has pointed out that there are other jurisdictions that have some form of parliamentary committee scrutiny. I will just point out in the resource from the conversation that Mr Limbrick circulated to members in advance of this debate – thank you, I enjoyed reading it – there are a variety of responses to judicial appointments across the Commonwealth countries highlighted. Not all of them involve parliamentary committee scrutiny, so there are different ways that Commonwealth jurisdictions have approached this. However, I believe that we have got good, independent advice for the government of the day to follow, and we do have robust accountability and transparency measures for our judiciary.

Just to close, I think that this is an important topic that has been raised for debate today, but I echo the concerns that have been stated by many in the chamber that we do not want to see further politicisation and we do not want to see attacks on people who are putting up their hands to be part of the administration of justice in this state. Everybody is rightly concerned by the politicisation of that process. I think it undermines rather than supports the doctrine of the separation of powers. We have got some level of political involvement in the appointment of judges in Victoria as is current practice. I do not think adding more politicians to that process is a cure. If we are looking at anything, it should be around further independent processes so we do not see a politicisation as we have seen in the US.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:57): I rise to share a few remarks on the motion that has been put forward to us today by Mr Limbrick, and I anticipate that I will expand on my contribution after question time. At the outset, just to make a few brief remarks, I concur with many of the speakers in this place today who have commented on the central importance of the separation of powers that we have that is so fundamental to our judicial system. I have appreciated contributions from my colleagues in government and I even acknowledge the contribution of Mr Mulholland. It is very rare for me to say that, especially on a Wednesday, but I found his remarks to be quite accurate in terms of not only the importance of that separation of powers but also the caution that we need to apply around adopting foreign models. With the more extreme example of the US, and I understand that that is not the model that Mr Limbrick is putting forward before us today, there is a cautionary tale in adopting whether it be the culture wars or judicial processes of a country that has a deeply flawed and partisan judicial appointment system.

When it comes to deliberating the merits on this motion, I will seek to go into some of the other international examples that have been cited by Mr Limbrick following question time. However, I think it is important that we remind ourselves that the Parliament is an independent jurisdiction, as indeed is the judiciary itself. In terms of keeping that, I also note that there is an open and competitive recruitment process for the Magistrates’ Court and for VCAT, which includes public recruitment campaigns. It also includes expressions of interest, applications and formal interview processes that anyone who is qualified is able to put their hand up for and enter into that process, which I think is a good thing – in fact it stands us in good stead, particularly in comparison to many other comparable jurisdictions. I will have some more remarks on other judicial appointments after question time, especially as it relates to the examples that have been put forward by Mr Limbrick in other jurisdictions.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.