Flexibility, part-time work needed for better bench, says judge
Western Australian Court of Appeal judge Janine Pritchard has called for greater flexibility in the judiciary, amid fears that strong candidates are being turned off judicial office or forced into early retirement by courts’ “historical reluctance” to embrace changing workplace standards.
In a speech to the Piddington Society last month, Justice Pritchard said that little progress had been made since her appointment to the bench 15 years ago, and that she “does not accept the excuses given” for the failure to adopt flexible or part-time working arrangements. The Perth-based Piddington Society describes itself as an association of lawyers “committed to collegiality and access to justice”.
Justice Janine Pritchard says that an ‘historic reluctance’ to change is holding back diversity in the judiciary.
“Having a work-life balance is important for us to keep the judiciary healthy and to keep people in the judiciary for as long as possible,” Pritchard, who has previously been touted as a High Court candidate, said.
A 2009 Senate committee report recommended that steps be taken to create guidelines for the use of the part-time judges, but there have been no further developments since.
In its 2023 Guide to Judicial Conduct, the Council of Chief Justices said that “judicial office is a full-time occupation and the timely discharge of judicial duties must take priority over any non-judicial activity”.
The Australian Judicial Officers Association declined to comment, but said it recognised the importance of the issue.
Top candidates lost
Catriona Macleod, president of Women Lawyers of Western Australia, which has advocated for greater flexibility in the judiciary, said that “by closing the door to more flexible working conditions, we lock out some of the best candidates for judicial office.”
Ms Macleod told The Australian Financial Review that women were self-selecting out of judicial appointment, or retiring early, because they could not balance family commitments with the demands of the bench.
Concerns about workload management, pension allocation and potential conflicts have been raised as objections to greater flexibility. But Justice Pritchard said the successful integration of part-time judicial officers in lower courts, such as in her role as president of WA’s Administrative Tribunal, disproved such arguments.
“We have employed part-time members, we let people work from home when we can and people come and go with great flexibility if they have family commitments,” she said.
Victoria is the only state that allows part-time appointments across all levels of the judiciary, while New South Wales has permitted part-time magistrates since 1999. Despite their permissibility in some jurisdictions, part-time appointments have remained rare, and overwhelmingly concentrated in lower courts.
Ms Macleod said the legal profession’s “inherent conservatism” had held back change, but expressed confidence that younger appointees would bring modern workplace values from the firms to the bench.
Adelaide University professor Suzanne Le Mire, who has co-authored research on part-time appointments, said difficulties with scheduling and courts’ independence obligations were in tension with the need for a more inclusive judiciary.
“It’s important to have a judiciary that represents Australia. Having greater diversity on the bench is important, and if you can’t have part-time work, then you potentially impact the ability of women to join the judiciary.
“Most people would be on board with this, but the challenge is making it work,” Ms Le Mire said.
Introducing your Newsfeed
Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.
Find out moreRead More
Latest In Professional services
Fetching latest articles