Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3089 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.58): Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to present the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1997.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: I present the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1997, together with its explanatory memorandum.
Title read by Clerk.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
I seek leave to incorporate my presentation speech in Hansard.
Leave not granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: Oh, suddenly you are interested in legal matters this morning. Well, well, well! What a surprise!
Mr Speaker, at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General held in March 1996 the committee considered a paper on the regulation of the practice of foreign law in Australia. The underlying purpose of the proposal is to facilitate the practice of Australian law in overseas countries because, unless there is reciprocity, Australian lawyers will, in many cases, not be able to practise overseas. Currently, the practice of foreign law in the Territory is not regulated. The Bill will, in essence, place persons practising foreign law here on the same regulatory footing as local lawyers as regards such matters as indemnity insurance, trust accounts and discipline.
Two approaches were discussed at the SCAG meeting. The first was a regulatory model which would regulate the practice of foreign law in Australia by a person who is qualified to practise law in an overseas jurisdiction. It would place lawyers practising foreign law on the same footing in relation to consumer protection and discipline as local practitioners. The alternative model was a declaratory provision which would provide that a person providing legal services relating to foreign law does not breach any domestic law. There was an almost even split at the SCAG meeting as to the preferred model. This Government favours the regulatory model because this more comprehensive approach will essentially place the practice of domestic and foreign law on the same footing and provide appropriate protection for consumers. The Law Society also favours the comprehensive approach.
The legal profession in the Territory is a fused profession, in that practitioners are admitted by the Supreme Court as barristers and solicitors, with practitioners choosing to practise as barristers, as solicitors, or as both. Solicitors are regulated by the Law Society, which is established by the Act. However, the Act does not establish a regulatory system for barristers, who, unlike solicitors, are not required to hold
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .