Page 299 - Week 01 - Thursday, 13 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This legislation was a debacle when it was brought into this place. This government and the Greens stubbornly went ahead with it. I think that the Greens to a large extent really did switch off towards the end of that debate because it was in the too-hard basket. Unfortunately we are seeing the consequence of much of this being rushed.
The Canberra Liberals voted against these provisions when the bill was originally debated last year. As we pointed out at the time, the legal costs are already regulated and the sections in the MAI Act are duplications of existing legislation. The Chief Minister was so preoccupied with the vendetta against the legal profession that he put forward this legislation without ensuring that it was actually fit for purpose. It was the government’s mistake and we are at least glad that it is being rectified now.
I would like to thank the ACT Law Society for drawing attention to this matter. They have been very diligent throughout this process and have ensured that much of the legislation is at least workable, albeit bad, legislation. If they had not astutely picked up on the government’s error, it could have had very serious implications.
The Chief Minister attempted to downplay the Law Society’s legitimate concerns in his speech, saying that it was not clear to the society and its members whether a lawyer could be paid or recover legal costs or fees. He is essentially saying that the lawyers do not how to read legislation. A bit of a tip to the Chief Minister: if the Law Society gives you legal advice, it is probably going to be right.
The act currently states:
A lawyer is not entitled to be paid, or to recover, any legal costs or fees for services provided … other than the prescribed costs and fees.
This is not an interpretation of the Law Society; this is the letter of the law, and that is why we are in this mess now. If the government did not also believe that there was a question of legality, then why would there be this desperation to fix it up today?
In all my years in the Assembly, this may well be the only occasion where legislation has been presented and debated on the same day. It is extraordinary that the Attorney-General signed off on the bill when the implication of these sections prohibits lawyers from being paid for their services. The MAI Act contains several provisions which seem to be targeted against the legal profession, including criminal penalties and offences which are not found in other jurisdictions.
The passage of the MAI Act and this bill calls into question yet again the Attorney-General’s ability to manage this portfolio. Given that we are now only a few weeks into the new scheme, it is disturbing to think what other faults might exist in this legislation. Given the consequences of getting this legislation wrong—it is so significant for Canberrans—I am quite fearful about what is going to happen next.
Despite the Chief Minister’s comments and advertising campaign telling Canberrans the contrary, it is not a fair and equitable system. Canberrans are still paying a huge amount for CTP. Canberrans are not getting all the benefits that the Chief Minister promised. But now it will be even harder for them to claim adequate compensation under the new scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video