A Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee has postponed scheduled evidence from two of the nation's chief justices, amid ongoing concern about criticism of the judiciary by politicians.

Coalition ministers Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar are facing contempt of court allegations, after making comments last week blasting the Victorian judiciary for what they described as weak sentences handed to terrorists.

A parliamentary committee chaired by Victorian MP Sarah Henderson is currently investigating the scourge of family violence.

It was due to hear testimony from the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, and Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, John Pascoe, in Canberra on Tuesday afternoon.

But last night, Ms Henderson told her colleagues the hearings would be postponed while the committee sought advice from Attorney-General George Brandis "on the appropriateness of senior members of the judiciary appearing for questioning by MPs before a parliamentary inquiry".

It is understood the concerns relate to the "separation of powers" between the Parliament and the judiciary, and not the potential for contempt of court.

The deputy chair of the committee, Labor's Sharon Claydon, said it was "very difficult to understand" where that concern came from, and that Ms Henderson was unable to explain her position to the Opposition.

Ms Claydon has told the ABC the reason given was her Liberal colleague's concerns about the "separation of powers".

The Labor MP said it was "very difficult to understand" where that concern came from, and that Ms Henderson was unable to explain her position.

Greg Hunt, Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge suggested judiciary were weak on terror sentences. ( AAP/ABC )

Ms Claydon argued that cancelling the hearing with the judges was "massively disrespectful", and that they had given evidence before the committee on other inquiries before.

The committee is made up of five Coalition members and three Labor members, and like all committees is covered by the protections of parliamentary privilege.

Last week, the Victorian Court of Appeal demanded Mr Hunt, Mr Tudge and Mr Sukkar appear before the court to explain their comments in The Australian newspaper.

The Commonwealth's chief counsel, the Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue appeared on their behalf.

He told the court the ministers regretted the use of some language but "did it to participate in what [they] considered to be an important public discussion" about terrorism sentences.

Nationals MP Andrew Broad had commented earlier in the week the matter served as a reminder for politicians to make comments in parliament, where they would have been covered by privilege.