'Very troubled'

Section 72 of the Constitution says federal judges can only be removed from office by the Governor-General after both houses of Parliament support the removal for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity".

The only federal judicial officer to have been referred to Parliament was High Court judge Lionel Murphy in 1985, but the commission of inquiry did not proceed because of the judge's terminal illness.

The process is now governed by the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act of 2012, which provides that both houses may each pass a resolution, in the same session, establishing a commission to investigate a judge.

However, Professor Andrew Lynch of the University of NSW said it was unclear who could make complaints and how they should be handled.

Law Council president Arthur Moses SC: "The public must be assured judicial officers understand the limits of their powers."

"The source of such complaints is not specified," Professor Lynch said. "Would the concerns of colleagues about a judicial officer's capacity fall within the concept, or must the concern be raised by litigants or their counsel?

"The statute is just providing legislative authority for what was probably informal practices occurring inside the court to address issues that might give rise to complaints."


Mr Moses said the council was "very troubled" by Judge Vasta's conduct and aptitude in the decisions that were overturned by the Family Court.

He added the Vasta cases had underlined the importance of litigants being treated "fairly and with courtesy and dignity in every court. This is very important, especially in stressful family law cases where the way in which parties are treated before the courts can have direct, adverse and long-lasting impacts on families and relationships between parents and their children," Mr Moses said.

"The public must be assured judicial officers understand the limits of their powers."

Mr Moses said a federal judicial commission similar to the NSW model "would provide a mechanism for any complaints against judges to be considered, as well as a fair opportunity for judges to explain their actions if they come under scrutiny".