Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2574 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

missed something, but my understanding is that that is not in the Bill; that, where there is not indemnity insurance and an issue does arise, it will be up to the individual effectively to sue for compensation. A lawyer can defend himself in court but an ordinary person cannot. One of the reasons for having the indemnity insurance in the first place is so that there is a system in place whereby the lawyer is not going to be personally affected.

I do have some concerns about this issue. It would appear that the prime purpose, as Ms Follett said, is to ensure that people are not paying for two lots of indemnity insurance. If the situation arises where exemptions are being given to somebody so that they have no indemnity insurance, then I think it will be time for us to say, "Why is the Law Society doing that? If they are, they should be wearing the responsibility".

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.58), in reply: I thank members for their support for the legislation. Picking up, first of all, the comments made by Ms Follett, let me indicate that I think she is right to refer to the need for a tidying up exercise here. The legal profession is changing over a period of time and amendments like this provide for it to be a more flexible profession to deal with the needs of its clients.

The legal profession particularly, I think, much like some other major professions such as the medical profession, inherited certain ways of doing things which go back into the distant past, not just in this country but, of course, in Britain. Some of the practices which are in operation are inappropriate, either in part or, in some cases, wholly, for a modern profession serving clients in a particular way. There has been, in fairness, much reform of the legal profession in recent years to accommodate a more outward looking approach, a more responsive approach, to the services it offers its clients. For example, just a few years ago it was not possible for lawyers to advertise. Now it is possible, and many lawyers do so. Similarly, there are restrictions still in place on the way in which lawyers may practise. They cannot incorporate themselves. They must practise either solely or in partnerships in the kind of way that this legislation talks about.

Mr Speaker, it is important in passing legislation of this kind that we generate a climate in which the legal profession can shed practices of the past which are no longer material or do not contribute to an appropriate level of service to its clients, and I would see this legislation as being of that nature. Clearly, the requirement of the past to obtain professional indemnity insurance was quite important, but it failed to account for the fact that today, with insurance practices changing, there are other ways of providing professional cover. I emphasise that this legislation does not allow any individual practitioner with an unrestricted practising certificate - the licence of a solicitor, so to speak, to practise on his or her own - to proceed to do that without having appropriate insurance cover. Every practitioner in the Territory with such a practising certificate needs to be covered for insurance, and this legislation will ensure that that is still the case. By passing the legislation today in this form we will make sure that there is not, in effect, a requirement for two forms of insurance to be in force at the one time. That clearly is an anachronism which needs to be rectified.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .