Page 2588 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
After many years of minority government, and actual commitment to community engagement and consultation, we do lead the country in the quality of much of our legislation. In this instance, I am satisfied that, despite the compromises necessary to achieve unanimity, the uniform law approach will result in a favourable outcome overall. Despite the growth of privative clauses, quasi-judicial decision making by members of the executive and attacks on the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive survives as one of the strongest protections we have against arbitrary and despotic government. By codifying the standards that parliament expects of the legal profession, we also clarify the power of the court to demand of its own volition, at a minimum, those standards from the legal profession.
This bill retains the power of the Supreme Court to adjudicate costs disputes, determine appeals from disciplinary proceedings and even to hear first instance cases involving serious professional misconduct. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the court retains original jurisdiction to discipline its own officers, and it is proper that the profession itself should have the principal responsibility for disciplining its own members.
I just want to reiterate some comments I made when the Legal Profession Bill was introduced. I quoted Her Honour Justice Tricia Kavanagh, who said:
The maintenance of the rule of law depends on lawyers who respect the truth and whose integrity is not for sale … Ethical behaviour provides the most fundamental distinction between the law as a profession and law as a business enterprise and it draws a distinct line between the legal practitioner and the mouthpiece.
Lawyers hold a position of responsibility and trust which is different from and, in many ways, greater than that of many other professions. Their first responsibility should always be to uphold their duties as officers of the court, and they should be protected from retribution by their employers or clients for upholding these duties. I applaud the provisions in this bill which protect the identity of lawyers who are the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
While full disclosure should apply when a person is found guilty, I would support a similar law which gave all parties to virtually all legal proceedings the right to anonymity if they chose it. The presumption of innocence is an important protection against the corrupt use of the legal process and government power. We have seen the presumption of innocence recently eroded, with that being justified as a reasonable assault on civil liberties under the cover of the so-called war on terror.
It is amazing how quickly things get forgotten, but the shameful treatment of Dr Haneef by the federal government and the AFP was, I believe, a case where the presumption of innocence was dropped. I think that that case highlighted that it is absolutely essential that we have safeguards set in place which do actually protect that as a fundamental right.
Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight and apologise to Darryl Hockey for comments I made in my speech on the legal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .