Page 2385 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is with considerable pleasure that I present the Legal Profession Amendment Bill 2007. This bill makes a number of substantial and technical amendments to the Legal Profession Act 2006, to finalise the ACT’s agreement to implement the national legal profession model law.
Last year, this Assembly passed the Legal Profession Act 2006, which repealed and replaced the Legal Practitioners Act 1970. The new legislation represents a major milestone in achieving consistency and uniformity in the regulation of the Australian legal profession. Importantly, when all jurisdictions have implemented the model law, it will also be easier for lawyers to practise across state, territory and international borders.
When the new act commenced operation on 1 July 2006, work was already underway to review and improve the model law. That task, undertaken by the National Legal Profession Model Laws Joint Working Party, was completed earlier this year, and all jurisdictions have now moved to amend their legislation to implement the revisions.
The majority of provisions in this bill reflect revisions of the model law. There are, however, several important amendments that flow from the significant contribution of the Law Society of the ACT and the ACT Bar Association to the development of the bill. Costs disclosure and trust account provisions, in particular, underwent significant review in response to submissions from the legal profession.
I will discuss those provisions in a moment, but I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to the bar association and the law society for their considerable effort and cooperation in achieving what I think is an outstanding result.
I am aware that not all of this legislation is precisely as the local profession would have preferred it. In some cases, the government has been bound by the terms of the national model while, in other instances, there may have been differences in the policy approach taken.
The profession has, with a view to achieving a timely implementation of this legislation, been prepared to put aside some of its concerns for later discussion. This says much about the commitment and professionalism of our barristers and solicitors, and their representative bodies.
Members may recall, from discussions about this legislation in June last year that the model law provisions were of three types:
• “core uniform”—being core provisions that are to be adopted in each state and territory, using the same wording so far as practicable.
• “core non uniform”—which are core provisions that are to be adopted in each state and territory, but the wording of the model provisions need not be adopted.
• “non core”—which are voluntary provisions, and states and territories can choose the extent to which they adopt these provisions.
A further category of “core uniform if adopted”—being provisions that are not mandatory, but must be uniform if adopted—was implemented during the review of the model law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .