Dr. David Kenny:

I thank the Senator. The point about solicitors is a very good one. There has been some movement in that there have been more appointments from the ranks of solicitors recently. A statistic the Law Society put out recently indicated that 8% of appointments to the superior courts in the past 12 years were from the ranks of solicitors, which is still a very small number. That should increase. It was noted in the most recent batch of High Court appointments that solicitors outnumbered barristers in terms of superior court appointments, and that was the first batch where that had ever happened. There might be a movement in that direction.

In terms of the number of lawyers in the country, approximately 80% would be qualified solicitors as opposed to approximately 20% who would be practising barristers. There has been a significant tilt towards the barristers' profession in that, and it is only since the mid-1990s that solicitors could be appointed to those courts. That is something that should change. It is perhaps true that solicitors have broader ranges of experience in the law and can engage in different functions while barristers tend to have more specific expertise in litigation. It is certainly something that is worthwhile and that should be a goal in the medium term.

As to continuing judicial education, there is nothing to be said against it. It is essential. It has been talked about a great deal but very little progress has been made on it. All applications to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board guarantee to undertake whatever training is required and repeatedly our judges have called for well-resourced systems of judicial education for all judges. That still has not been pushed, but it is essential. Courses in judicial studies should be required both at the start of and throughout a judicial career because there is nothing to be said against it. It would be only for the better.