Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been standard practice for parliamentary committees to take testimony from judges about important legal matters. This is especially true of the House's Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which I have been deputy chair of since 2013. The testimony of judges has long been crucial in helping committees to come to informed decisions and make effective recommendations. But last month the scheduled appearance of Chief Judge Pascoe and Chief Justice Bryant at the committee's inquiry into family violence and the family law system was canned with less than 24 hours notice. These judges submitted to the inquiry and agreed voluntarily to appear. As far as I am aware, neither raised concerns about the appropriateness of appearing. Indeed, it is a matter of record that both have appeared before parliamentary committees on multiple occasions in both private and professional capacities. Yet today we have the Attorney-General's advice suggesting it is no longer appropriate for judges to appear before parliamentary committees. This represents a drastic and detrimental departure from what has been a longstanding practice in this parliament.

How can committees make serious recommendations about reform of family law without speaking to the very people that see the human face and consequences of these laws every day? I have seen nothing in the Attorney-General's advice to explain why this longstanding practice has suddenly become inappropriate or, if it is so inappropriate, why he has done nothing about it for the past four years. This Attorney-General is a laughing stock amongst the Australian legal community and this letter shows why. He tries to justify his untenable position by citing generations-old comments from a British aristocrat that directly contradict our own parliament's House of Representatives Practice, which refers explicitly to the voluntary appearance of judges before House committees about matters of law and policy. Let's be clear: judges are highly competent professionals with eminent legal minds. They are entirely capable of deciding what is and what isn't appropriate. They don't need the Attorney-General to tell them how to do their jobs or to protect them from themselves.

This leads me to wonder if there is something else going on here. It is a matter of public record that various judges at different times have spoken out publicly or provided evidence to committees about serious matters facing our courts and our legal system. I can't understand why judges are now being silenced from committee hearings and committees are being limited in their capacity to fully examine issues that go to matters of law and policy. Is the Attorney-General really concerned about what is appropriate or is he more worried about what his chief legal officers might reveal about what is happening on his watch?