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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2575 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Moore is not the first person to raise the question of the self-regulation of the profession and the way in which certain privileges attach to the profession by virtue of that privilege of self-regulation. As members would be aware, rather than a process that is, in a sense, more public or more structured for disciplining of people who breach provisions of the law in other professions, in contrast, in the legal profession there is a certain amount of internal self-regulation of the way in which members comply with the rules that the profession lays down, including the requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Ironically, Mr Moore's former colleague, Ms Szuty, sits now on what I think is called the professional disciplinary tribunal. I forget its name, but it is the body that deals with the disciplining of lawyers. She is one of only two lay people on that board. It is a board consisting primarily of lawyers. The issue Mr Moore raises should, conceptually, be of concern to us all. How we tackle this issue needs to be addressed over a period of time; not in a random way on the floor of the chamber, but rather through some process which will see the issues thoroughly explored. The Legal Affairs Committee of the last Assembly looked at this issue at one point but found it fairly impenetrable and did not recommend any fundamental changes to the way in which the legal profession operated.

There is a need for us to ask ourselves what is the best means of getting people to comply with fundamental rules that deal with relationships between, in this case, professional people and their clients and of professional people one with another. Some would argue that self-regulation is the best form of regulation; others would argue that accountable external regulation is the best form of regulation. But, Mr Speaker, those issues are much too large to traverse properly in today's debate. I say simply, as a lawyer myself and as the Attorney-General, that I am not opposed to a suggestion that there should be review of that issue and I would be happy to engage in debate or in discussion with other members who are concerned about this issue to see how we might examine that question more thoroughly.

The important point is that we facilitate the best possible level of service to those people in the community who have need of legal advice. Their needs are the most important consideration. If we can generate a professional practice which facilitates that, then we are serving the community appropriately. If that is not achieved by the present Legal Practitioners Act, I am very happy to talk to members about a better way of doing that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

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