Editorial: Judges’ travel expenses must be justified

ONLY this week was the 2016-17 overseas travel report containing the global sojourns of our judges uploaded onto the courts website, more than 12 months after that financial year was completed.

Some of the trips taken by judges appear to be little more than junkets.

NOT only must justice be done, the oft-quoted saying goes, it must be seen to be done.

Much the same principle also aptly applies to the dragnet of accountability measures that are now commonplace in modern democracies.

Public disclosure allows people to assess for themselves whether those who hold positions of authority are acting appropriately, while at the same time working as an effective deterrent of improper behaviour.

Secrecy, on the other hand, feeds suspicion. And that spawns distrust among people, undermining the acceptability and validity of the work performed by our important institutions.

Of all those who serve in public positions, you’d expect that it would be the titans of the judiciary who would understand and execute this principle the best. Sadly, that is not the case.

Yet again the Queensland courts have played hide-and-seek with the annual release of how our judges spent their jurisprudential allowances.

Only this week was the 2016-17 overseas travel report containing the global sojourns of our judges uploaded on to the courts website, more than 12 months after that financial year was completed. The ludicrous time it takes for this information to be released by the courts just makes it appear like our judges have something to hide.

The public disclosure of this information has been contentious for many years given the allowance is technically part of a judge’s salary.

The opening stanza of the travel report has long harped on about how “it is not correct to view it as taxpayers’ money”. However, that interpretation is a bit cute considering the allowance was originally introduced as a taxpayer-funded stipend, travel can be paid for from their office expenses and judges cannot be hired and fired like regular employees.

Separate to all that, but just as important, is the fact that what judges are doing during their travels away from their day jobs is in the public interest because all of it ostensibly occurs for professional purposes. We’re not talking about small sums of money here either.

The annual jurisprudential allowance stretches from $29,689 for a District Court Judge to $38,740 for the Chief Justice and they all receive another $11,229 in office expenses.

Collectively, the judges spent almost $1.4 million in 2016-17. And what they spent it on will raise the eyebrows of more than a few Queenslanders.

Legal travel conferences are a lucrative cottage industry given it is common for judges in western society to be afforded a travel allowance.

While organisers ensure there is a veneer of credibility to each conference, they are commonly held in exotic or popular destinations and almost always spruik a healthy arrangement of “networking opportunities” for prospective customers.

Take, for example, the Australian
Bar Association’s conference in London and Dublin last July that proved
popular with several members of the Queensland judiciary.

There were some weighty topics up for discussion, like freedom of speech, tax law and the geographically appropriate “implications of Brexit”.

Yet between all that were opportunities to attend a gala dinner, spend a day at the races and tag along on a pub crawl to three popular Dublin watering holes – The Thirsty Three, The Palace and The Stag’s Head.

While most workers will never get to visit an international destination on the bosses’ time, a degree of travel for judges to familiarise themselves with global legal trends is necessary. However, when some trips appear to be little more than junkets, there will continue to be questions about whether they are appropriate.

If the judiciary really does believe their travels are legitimate then they should be prepared release the details in a timely manner.

Darren and Loren Lockyer with children Sunny, 8, Hugo, 5, and Flynn, 6, and newborn Cleo. Picture: Tara Croser

FERTILITY SHOULD NOT BE TABOO

“SO when are you going to have kids?”

It’s the one question most couples in a battle to conceive simply dread.

Some people respond by just shrugging off the question, while others attempt to confront the uncomfortable query with a gag about how they’re too busy having fun and don’t want children ruining their social lives.

Fertility problems remain private topics for good reason.

Having family and friends check in about whether in vitro fertilisation (IVF) worked can just compound the pain.

However, while the level of privacy we are comfortable with is a matter for each of us individually, fertility should not be a taboo topic.

So discussing issues with loved ones, as well as doctors, cannot only be a cathartic experience but yield helpful insights.

The story of champion rugby league player Darren Lockyer and his wife Loren is one of a family that has lived in the public spotlight since marrying in 2007, while enduring the private pain of fertility problems.

Nine weeks ago, the family welcomed their fourth child into the world with the birth of daughter Cleo.

Three boys came before – Sunny, Flynn and Hugo in 2013.

The couple reveal for the first time today in The Courier-Mail that all four of their children have been conceived through IVF. Not everyone can afford IVF or wants to explore that option.

But the story of the Lockyer family shows that these problems can affect anyone, sometimes people we know and love without realising it.

It also shows that the wonders of modern medicine can produce a lifetime of happiness and joy.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Sam Weir, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details are available at couriermail.com.au/help/contact-us