Page 3974 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (5.03): I want to respond to what Mr Stefaniak just said. With respect, the word "represent" has to be read in its context as well. The injunction on the community advocate is very clear. The role of community advocate can be seen elsewhere in the legislation. In context it does not, with respect to Mr Stefaniak and to groups who have petitioned him to bring about a change, provide for a lesser role for the advocate.
"Protect" is one element of representing a client. I think there is a semantic problem in the perception of protection here. You find the role of the community advocate throughout the Bill. You read the word "represent" in the context of the purpose and nature of the legislation, in the traditional system of statutory interpretation, and it is quite clear that, if mandamus lay, or something, "represent" would be given its wide meaning within the context of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 16
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.06): This is a clause on which there has been some concern from community groups. The community groups did not like the suggestion in clause 16 that the community advocate could go to an outside lawyer only if there was a potential for conflict of interest. They thought that there was perhaps a broader need to go outside.
There were two ways of dealing with that perceived problem. I think at different stages Mr Collaery, Mr Stefaniak and I have thought of dealing with that problem in different ways. One way would be to be silent on the matter altogether and rely on a general provision that a statutorily-created official can go and seek legal advice from lawyers outside that organisation. Many government departments do that on a daily basis, without any express statutory provision to say that they may engage a legal practitioner to assist them.
The other would have been to prepare a clause, such as the proposed amendment to clause 16, which is a general provision; rather than being headed "conflict of interest" and limiting the circumstances in which a solicitor can be engaged or a legal practitioner can be engaged, give a general power to engage a legal practitioner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .