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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4219 ..

MR STEFANIAK: During question time Mr Corbell asked me a question about housing. There were some incorrect figures in my answer. I now have a response for Mr Corbell. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Document incorporated at Appendix 2.

[COGNATE BILL:

Debate resumed from 23 September 1997, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Legal Practitioners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 5 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 6.

MR WOOD (10.05): Mr Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting this Bill and the consequential amendments Bill that follows. The Bill amends the Legal Practitioners Act to take account of the mutual recognition scheme. That is something to be widely supported. If, in the case of the last Bill we discussed, Mr Humphries had concerns about the views of the legal profession, I know that he would be confident that they would be very supportive of this Bill going through. I have no amendments to move to it. The Opposition will be supporting both Bills now being discussed.

MR MOORE (10.06): Mr Speaker, whilst I rise to support this legislation, I do have some comments to make. The comment that I think is most significant is that it is interesting that this legislation, which is part of the mutual recognition scheme, is the one area that I am conscious of where we allow the union to regulate the profession. I think it is an interesting concept that we use within the legal profession. Indeed, it has been going on for some time. I must say that it is some years since the Legal Affairs Committee of the Assembly looked at the cost of justice. It occurred at the same time as the inquiry in the Senate. Nobody has yet found a way to wrestle with the growing costs of legal services. I cannot help wondering whether this way of regulating the profession is part of the reason why costs in legal circles are escalating.

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