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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1686 ..

Debate resumed from 15 May 1997, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WOOD (5.21): Mr Speaker, the Opposition supports this Bill. This Bill, like others around the country when they emerge, arises out of agreements of the Attorneys-General. It makes the sensible proposal that there should be mutual recognition, in this case, for solicitors across Australia. We will now be giving equal rights to solicitors in New South Wales and the ACT. At the same time, we will be giving them equal responsibilities. They have to pick up certain obligations as well. I hope this provides, perhaps as an unintended consequence, greater competition for solicitors in the ACT. I hope it encourages them to give a better service. I hope it also provides for a more competitive fee structure from solicitors. If that is another benefit of this Bill, so much the better. We will be supporting it.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.22), in reply: Mr Speaker, I want to thank Mr Wood for the Opposition's support for this Bill. It is, as he correctly says, a step towards better service to clients ultimately. That is what this whole process is meant to be about - making sure that a practitioner who might be qualified to practise, having obtained qualifications in a particular place, should not be prevented unnecessarily from being able to exercise some role as a lawyer or other adviser to a person in another jurisdiction, if that is appropriate, if they are able to demonstrate the necessary skills to do that. I think that the concept of reciprocity in this profession, as indeed in others, is a very important step towards breaking down unnecessary barriers presenting themselves through Australia's federal system.

The reality is that lawyers trained, for example, in this Territory are trained basically to be conversant with the law of the ACT, the law of New South Wales and, to a large extent, the law of Victoria as well. So it makes little sense to imagine that someone trained in and practising in the ACT would not be able to work well in New South Wales. Similarly, lawyers with experience are generally able to pick up the relevant legislation and deal with it in another place, and a lawyer in Sydney might well be able to deal with matters in Canberra. More probably, and more frequently, the situation will be that somebody in Queanbeyan will want to practise in the ACT. In future the necessity to obtain separate qualifications, separate right of practice in the ACT, will be obviated by this process.

I should draw to the attention of members some last minute advice which has been received from New South Wales concerning this legislation. Each jurisdiction is making legislation and then certifying that the legislation in other jurisdictions is reciprocal legislation, the operation of which allows their practitioners to practise in the home jurisdiction and home practitioners to practise in the other reciprocating jurisdiction.

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