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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2615 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The process of reform of this area is a matter that has not been left unaddressed by governments, not just here but around Australia, for some time. Mr Osborne might be aware that the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, has had in place now for some time a legal profession reform working group which has been developing a series of reforms of the legal profession, including reform of complaints and disciplinary processes. That working group has already produced a quite large number of changes in the area of reform of the legal profession. In fact, some of those reforms have come before this house and been enacted. The decision that we made in 1995, for example, to abolish the position or to discontinue the appointment of queen's counsel was a product of the work of that working group.

As far as the disciplinary processes in use in the ACT are concerned, I would accept the argument that they need to be reviewed and perhaps reformed. Work is going on within my department at the moment to consider what is the best model to do that with, and, in turn, that is feeding up to the COAG working group process. That is a slow process, but the ACT Government has committed itself to being part of the working group exercise. That group was set up, in fact, by the former Government, not by us, and we have remained part of that train as we work towards changes in the law.

Let me make two points clear. One is that it is better to have uniform processes in this respect and for us to have common rules for lawyers around the country, the reason being that we now have mutual recognition in force for lawyers practising across State boundaries. Therefore, it is important for the same rules of discipline to apply to a lawyer who might work part of the time in the ACT and part of the time in New South Wales, for example. That is why working with other States is important.

The second point is that I do not think you should be misled into believing that the penalty imposed on this particular lawyer was the only penalty that he or she might face as a result of the actions that have been criticised. He or she, of course, is not immune from the normal processes of prosecution under the criminal law. If there has been a defalcation, that lawyer will be subject, presumably, at least to consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions for charges to be brought against him or her.

MR OSBORNE: I have a supplementary question. I am pleased to hear that, Mr Humphries. Will you agree, then, to write to the Law Society and insist that they forward this brief on to the police? Will you also contact the Law Society to insist on the publication of this lawyer's name and request the reasons for their imposing no penalty?

MR HUMPHRIES: As for forwarding the brief to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if it is properly a matter for the Law Society to do that I will urge them to do so; but I suspect that the facts that gave rise to this matter have already come to the attention of the DPP. It is very hard to imagine that a client who was aggrieved in circumstances where money was defrauded or misused would not first have gone to the police or otherwise brought the matter to the attention of the authorities rather than to the Law Society. I will find out whether the matters have been referred. I would be very surprised if they had not already come to the attention of the DPP.

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