Dr. David Kenny:

I agree with Dr. O'Brien's characterisation of it, that it is perhaps disproportionate to frame the offence in the way it has been in the heads of the Bill. It is very important that confidentiality, data protection and various other desiderata in these processes are taken seriously.

The heads of the Bill probably go too far, both in terms of the scope and scale of criminal offences and perhaps the need for a criminal offence in general. What was done previously would have been acceptable. I do not know that it needs to go that far.

If I could weigh in briefly on the previous conversation as well, without taking up the Senator's time, I echo what was in the submission of the Law Society in respect of academic appointments. We often see in various jurisdictions around the world effective academic appointments in particular to appellate courts. We need to be mindful of procedural knowledge not being something that even every practitioner picks up in respect of the practice in individual courts. Ultimately, if we insist on decades of practice in a particular court being required, we will only appoint litigators and that will, per se, massively reduces the pool of appointments that we have. We need judicial education in practice and procedure for all judges because we cannot guarantee that people's professional experience has prepared them, nor should we. We should train people in the art of practice and procedure, so I might add that as well if I could.