Residents of the House on the Hill broke into spontaneous song last month with the news Hilary Penfold QC, head of the Department of Parliamentary Services, would be off to the ACT Supreme Court: “You can have her, we don’t want her…”.

Penfold has been a controversial figure for some time. She clashed with many senior Labor people in her time with the DPS. Earlier, as head of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, she drafted the Tampa legislation.

Her appointment to the ACT Supreme Court caused controversy too, given that she has never practised law.

Now, the ACT Bar Association has criticised the process that led to the appointment of Penfold and former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Richard Refshauge. The Association says the judicial appointment process should be taken out of government hands.

President George Brzostowski says the ACT Government failed to consult the Chief Justice, the Law Society and himself about one of the appointments. “It’s taken us back to the days I suppose where judicial appointments are an act of mystery,” he told ABC Radio.

Brzostowski says Australia should follow overseas leads and establish an independent judicial commission to oversee appointments.

“You would end up having people who are independent of government,” he said. “In other words there would be a huge reduction if not an alienation of a risk that a candidate would be chosen because a person for instance may have a political harmony with the cabinet of the day.”

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell has reacted angrily to the Association’s claims it was not consulted.

“I reject that allegation absolutely,” he said. “I consulted with the Law Society, the Bar Association and the Chief Justice on possible appointments to the bench and having taken their views into consideration proceeded with the appointments that have been announced in the last couple of months.”

ANU law academic Hugh Selby criticised Penfold’s appointment in a Canberra Times opinion piece earlier this month.

“Why did the Government appoint to the Supreme Court a senior federal public servant who has no relevant practical experience in criminal or civil trials when there are at least four more competent women and at least the same number of more competent men available among Canberra barristers, magistrates and solicitors?” he wrote.