The following assessment of the standing of the judiciary in Australia would be regarded as generally accurate: ‘Measured in historical and international terms the Australian judiciary is acknowledged to be of outstanding quality and has enjoyed the public’s confidence.’ Nevertheless, there have been particular judicial appointments which were claimed to be motivated by political considerations or which were based on cronyism. Simon Evans and John Williams wrote:

Such claims exist due to the fact that the process of judicial appointment lacks transparency. In noting calls for greater transparency in judicial appointments processes, the current federal Attorney-General (Robert McClelland) acknowledged that the mystery surrounding the current processes and the controversy over past appointments would give rise to two negative consequences: ‘First, it can tarnish or detract from the honour of being appointed to judicial office. Second, at a broader level it can diminish public confidence in the courts and the justice system.’ The federal Attorney-General’s response to the issue was that improvements could be made through the ‘touchstones of increased transparency and greater consultation’. Apart from the growing calls for reforms to the appointments process, increasing interest at the federal level and in a number of the states is also focused on the absence of appropriate mechanisms for handling complaints against judicial officers for misconduct which is not of sufficient seriousness to warrant the extreme measure of removal from office.

In Australia, most judicial appointments are effected without much publicity. Senior judicial appointments do attract a degree of media interest, especially appointments to the High Court of Australia. When a vacancy arises in the High Court there is the usual speculation about the identity of the person likely to be appointed to fill the vacancy. At both federal and state levels, judicial appointments are in reality made by the government of the day. In formal constitutional terms, the appointment of federal judges is made by the Governor-General in Council, while the appointment of state judges is made by the Governor in Council. A discussion paper issued by the federal Attorney-General’s Department in 1993 succinctly describes the appointment process as varying according to the ‘personal preferences of individual Attorneys-General’.