Page 1923 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee recommended in its recommendation 1 that a further committee be appointed in order to monitor the transfer. I think that is a very sensible recommendation. That committee also ought to explore the whole area of public sector reform, because that is something that we need to do. I would go further and say that that committee should seek the funds to appoint an eminent person or a group to carry out at their behest an inquiry into public sector reform. It may well be that in fact the cheapest way for the committee to operate is to use somebody's expertise. Certainly they have already had the advantage of some expertise in Professor Roger Wettenhall appearing before them. I think that giving somebody of that stature terms of reference established by the select committee to deal with the issues of public sector reform that they wish to explore would be an excellent way to continue the debate and to establish some sensible suggestions on how that might be achieved.
As to the whistleblowers legislation, the committee says that the sensible solution is to adopt what we have in front of us as a temporary measure, as part of the transition, and then, as part of the public sector reform process I have talked about, to explore this issue further so that the amendments can be made and the issue can be dealt with appropriately. I think that is a sensible way to go.
There are a couple of areas where I think it is important to separate the issues in the transfer of the public service. I begin with the Legal Aid Commission. The Legal Aid Act provides for the creation of basically a firm of solicitors practising in partnership. The firm observes the same rules and standards of professional conduct as a private legal practice would. Staff working for the Legal Aid Commission and employed by the commission are deemed to be employed by a statutory firm called the Legal Aid Office, which is constituted by the chief executive officer and the assistant executive officer.
For sound practical and ethical reasons, the firm - and I use that term broadly - is run, as far as possible, on the same lines as a private law firm. Its services are equivalent to those provided to prudent self-funding litigants, and its practice, management and culture generally, as far as possible, are those of a private law firm. There is a regular movement of staff between the Legal Aid Office and the private legal profession. There are huge advantages in it operating in that way. The obligations of a solicitor acting for an individual client are the same, whether or not the client is legally aided and whether the solicitor is a legal aid staff member or a private practitioner. The solicitor is bound to give his or her client objective advice, keep the client's secrets and avoid being placed in a position of conflict of interest.
The staff of the Legal Aid Office must be independent of government, but it is equally important that they be seen by clients and potential clients to be independent of government. Certainly, in other States where the community sees legal aid as too closely associated with government there are problems. Experience in Tasmania and New South Wales, where the Legal Aid Commission has been integrated into the public service, shows that integration has resulted in problems which include some of the following. Requirements that priority be given to employing redeployees from other government departments rather than the job being given to the best person have caused considerable delays. Across-the-board staff increases have had their impact. Inflexibility in salary levels has also had its impact, and so on. There are also other difficulties associated with those issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .