Page 280 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that they were right and that they still could continue to practise under the Legal Aid Act. But it is a bit of a problem.
Perhaps this is why the department had to advise the convolution created by this amendment does “point to the need to redraft the national legal profession model, which is currently happening”. Amen to that. I look forward to seeing how the new model will create a path that is, like the definition as it presently stands in the Legal Aid Act, simple and easy to follow.
That said, the Canberra Liberals will be supporting this legislation today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.07): The Greens will be supporting this bill. It makes a number of changes to the law that governs legal aid in the ACT. Legal Aid plays an important role in providing legal advice and representation to people who cannot afford a private lawyer. It fills an important hole in our legal system and the Greens very much welcome the work that legal aid officers do.
Clients of Legal Aid are people who, because of their low income and limited assets, as I said, cannot afford a private lawyer. There are eligibility criteria set to distinguish between who should be provided with legal aid and who can afford their own representation. Some potential clients will, of course, straddle the criteria. They will not be able to afford a private lawyer themselves, but at the same time they will not qualify for a 100 per cent legally funded lawyer.
For these people, Legal Aid will ask that they make a part contribution to the fees. In return, they are provided with a lawyer. This is obviously a good outcome because it allows people on the fringes who straddle the criteria to get reliable legal representation. However, of course, clients are not frozen in time and their financial situation may change. During the course of their court case they may get a better paying job or, unfortunately, they may lose their job and see their income reduced.
What has become apparent is that the amount these clients are asked to pay needs to be flexible and this needs to be clear in the legislation. This is one amendment made by this bill. The attorney’s speech used the example of someone who has an improved financial situation being able to have their contribution increased.
We were concerned to ensure that it also worked in the reverse so that if a client does come across harder times they can have their contribution reduced. My office checked this with Legal Aid ACT who advised that, yes, the alteration can and will work in both directions. This was important, and I thank Legal Aid for that advice.
The remainder of the bill makes minor but important changes to the protections and immunities offered to lawyers working for Legal Aid. It is the case that barristers appearing in court are immune from liability for their actions, with the exception of professional negligence. This is a longstanding protection offered to lawyers which recognises that they have dual obligations to both their client and the court and that at times these dual obligations may in fact compete with each other. The obligation to the court may restrict or influence how a barrister operates in court.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video