Page 3826 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, it may be that, since my time in private practice, lawyers have improved methods and would not find difficulty in keeping track of those documents. I also note that the Law Society has been involved in the development of this legislation and is prepared to accept these provisions without much problem. But this provision may catch some lawyers unawares and will require some of them to keep more careful and detailed records of what documents, securities and other things they hold, in order not to offend against these new provisions in the legislation. I agree with the Attorney that this provision, in theory at least, will provide for better protection of the interests of a client of a solicitor.
It is also indicated in this legislation that certain decisions relating to the payment of moneys out of the fidelity fund, if there is an appeal from that decision by the Law Society, will be dealt with by way of an appeal to, in some cases, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rather than the Supreme Court, which is presently the body to which one resorts if one is dissatisfied with a decision. It is obviously easier to deal with a matter in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal than in the Supreme Court. That is a positive move, I think, which is satisfactory. I assume that there will be no difficulty with two bodies holding jurisdiction to consider these matters. There may be some matters which cross between the two. I have not explored that in detail, but I assume that that will be resolved in practice and will not require any special amendment to the legislation.
There is one final matter that I want to refer to, Madam Speaker. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee made reference to clause 9 of the legislation, which amends section 67 of the principal Act to reinstate the power of the Supreme Court to reprimand a barrister. It appears, although it is not expressly stated in the presentation speech, that this power was accidentally removed when the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill of last year was passed, that it should not have been removed and that it is now being reinstated; but it is being reinstated retrospectively. I assume that it is being done on that basis because there have been at least some barristers - perhaps only one - that have been reprimanded by the Supreme Court, and this is designed to protect the jurisdiction of the court to do so. It could be said that, by legislating retrospectively in this case, we are adversely affecting the position of those barristers; but I hope that the Attorney can indicate to me, when he speaks on this matter, whether that, in fact, is the case.
I do not have a great problem with this particular matter. I think it is important for the court to exercise that jurisdiction over barristers and solicitors. They are, in a very strict sense, officers of the court. They are admitted for life to that position. So, people like me and the Attorney, who do not actually practise as lawyers, retain our titles as barristers and solicitors of the court, and that carries with it certain responsibilities which ultimately vest in the Supreme Court. It is important, obviously, that they be exercised within the jurisdiction of the law. It will be interesting to know what the situation is. I assume that the Attorney will enlighten us on that matter. However, Madam Speaker, apart from those small matters, the Liberal Party is very happy to see this legislation passed and hopes that it will, indeed, improve the level of accountability by lawyers to their clients and the community generally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .