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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (25 October) . . Page.. 2035 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

Mr Humphries said that he would be happy to keep the old monarchist conventions if there was a way of doing it, and he challenged me to prepare an amendment. We, of course, would not support that, but I can say to him that it would be a very simple amendment. It would be a simple amendment that that part of the prerogative power that allows the Executive to appoint to the office of queen's counsel is vested in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. That simple form of amendment would allow the office of queen's counsel to continue should the monarchists amongst us wish to do that.

I am sure that Mr Humphries will not take up that suggestion, though, because it is an anachronism, and it is a sensible development that we are moving forward and abolishing any role for the executive government. That would have the same effect because the executive government would have no part in it. It is simply that what is now a prerogative that went from the Crown to the executive government would be seen as a prerogative vested in the judiciary, and there is no difficulty with that as a point of principle. However, it is a sensible thing that we are abolishing the office of queen's counsel. It is perfectly open to the bar to adopt, as they have, the designation of senior counsel, and that will continue. I said, when I was responsible for these matters and this was first suggested, that I thought it was something of a tenth order in terms of legal reform, and I still do think that.

Apart from the symbolism of abolishing the vestiges of the monarchy in the office, some enthusiasts for abolishing queen's counsel claimed that this would lead to cheaper legal fees because the fees the queen's counsel charge would no longer be charged. I just do not think that is the case. Clearly, in New South Wales and here the office of senior counsel is regarded by all on the bench and at the bar and in the ranks of solicitors as the equivalent of queen's counsel. There is no disparity in fees. The best of the younger members of the bar who are now becoming senior counsel, I am sure, can expect that they will be charging precisely the same as those members of the senior bar who hold the office of queen's counsel, depending on their ability.

It is a notorious fact that in the good old republic of the United States of America, where there have been no queen's counsel since the revolution some 200 or so years ago, the best of the trial lawyers, or at least those with the best flair for publicity who get themselves hired by the O.J. Simpsons of this world, charge phenomenal fees that would make even the most eminent Sydney QC blush. Wherever you are, you will have supply and demand and you will have those people in the very front ranks of the bar charging high fees. I really do not think this will do anything about fees. Nonetheless, it is a sensible measure. The Opposition supports it, but we do point out that, if Mr Humphries does really want to stick to his monarchist guns and does want to preserve the title of queen's counsel but abolish the role of the executive government, there is a way for him to do it, but it probably would not find the support of the house.

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