Mr Pallas (Tarneit) — I too rise to speak on the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Bill 2013.  In so doing I have  to declare an interest: like so many before  me,  I am a  lawyer,  and  I am in  possession  of  a current practising certificate, so to some extent the changes proposed will have an impact on me.

The bill  proposes to bring  the  Victorian legal profession  into  a regulatory scheme which matches that of  New  South  Wales.  It  intends  that other states should also adopt the  same regulations.  In passing,  I  have  to  say that  I am  somewhat disappointed about the increasing erosion of  consensus around the  move towards uniformity  in  this  profession and in a broader sense  that  is  occurring  in national forums. It is a matter for some concern.

I am a great believer in  states’  rights. I believe that when it  comes  to the delivery of services the states perform a critical role. However, our federation is based on one vital and inalienable fact — that is, that we do so much better when we act as a  nation with a common set of laws.  Initially the attraction of federation  was that we saw ourselves as a commonwealth — as a  community whose interests were best served by a common purpose. This was largely borne out of an economic sense that our interests were best served by removing the duplicity and the overbearing nature of state excises and tariffs as borders were crossed.

Citizens  who saw themselves as being part of the  one  nation  were  ultimately being  charged in  the  process for  effectively  participating in the  national economy, so a true nation was formed.

However, increasingly what we are seeing, and with some  disappointment, is that when states  have  an opportunity to  do  away with unnecessary  duplication but matters that  are properly  within the  preserve of  a state  or states are  not offered up  for the national good and we do  not get consistency, we are all the poorer for it. In saying that I  believe that this initiative, with Victoria and New South Wales working together, in many ways demonstrates that there  is still some way to go  to bring about commonality  of purpose for laws of  this nature. The codification principally of state areas and activities into a single purpose and the regulation  of professions would be of great advantage to the community. We are in favour of harmonising Victorian professional regulations with those in other states.

The old  adage that  compromise is  the best  and cheapest lawyer is probably an adage  that  should  inspire  the  states  to  recognise  that  coming  to  some understanding around these things is a critically important initiative.

There have been a series of previous legislative efforts that have brought us to this point. The first  effort in regard to uniform laws for the legal profession occurred under the  Labor governments in Victoria  and New South  Wales. Through the  wonderful work of the previous Attorney-General, the  Honourable Rob Hulls, the  former  member for Niddrie,  the Victorian Labor  government  was leading a movement towards national agreement. Getting that  consensus  between the states on this  type of  legislation has been tough, and nobody shirks from the obvious statement that getting states to agree to operate in community and with a common purpose is a difficult task.

Losing that common purpose demeans the  quality  of  our legislation and in many ways places an impost upon the practice of the profession and also the certainty with which the  community views the laws it is bound by and  indeed the capacity for lawyers  to act  in  a  way  that  is  seen  as   being  consistent   across jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions  other than New South Wales and Victoria have all dropped  out  of the  national  scheme, starting  with  Queensland  in  2012.  This  is  bitterly disappointing. While the government will  no doubt be trying to convince, cajole or impress upon  those  other states the  need  to come back to  the  purpose of uniform regulation, I think it is  appropriate that Victoria and New South Wales work  in harmony. After all,  we  are the two largest  states  in terms of  both population and our substantial involvement in our economic wellbeing.

I would hazard  a guess that the  proportion  of lawyers in New  South Wales and Victoria —  just looking around this Parliament, if it is any  evidence of  the fact — would be the two highest amongst the states.

I observe that  you cannot  get too  many lawyers.  They are wonderful; they add greatly  to colour and texture. I recall that  in  Henry VI, Part 2 there is the famous quote:

  The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Let us take some comfort in the fact that the lawyers had good lawyers and  that that  never  transpired,  because as  we  know  from Measure  for  Measure, good counsellors lack no clients.

When it comes to good counsel, the good counsel we give to other states — can I call them  the mendicant  states in  this respect  — is  that uniform  laws are critical  to  the wellbeing of this profession and the confidence in  which  the profession is held.

The  current bill has been  drafted in a short  time  frame, and there are  some concerns we  have with respect to consultation, particularly around consumers of legal  services.  We  would  like  to  have  seen  legal  costs  addressed  more substantially  in  the  bill.  Costs  often  form  the  content  of  substantial complaints regarding  the legal profession, and  it is important that the rights of consumers in this  area  should come to the  fore.  Under the bill the  legal services  commissioner will be able  to make binding  rulings on costs disputes, leaving  consumers effectively  without  recourse if  they  feel badly done  by. Additionally  the  threshold amount  of  costs  for disclosure  is  left to  the profession itself to decide.

Transparency is an important matter in  the context in which the profession will be able to rely on the consistency of this bill and its uniform application across the two  larger states. The great disappointment is that costs disclosure requirements have not been recognised for the importance they have in protecting consumer  interests.  They should not  really  be left — dare  I  say it —  to lawyers to charge  as  they see fit. The  costs  provisions of the bill  and the decision   to   rush   the   bill  through  without  proper   consultation   are disappointments,  but ultimately this  is a valuable  advance forward and should not be in any niggardly way demeaned.

The bill excludes the new authorities from several forms of oversight, including of  the Charter  of  Human Rights  and  Responsibilities.  This is  yet  another illustration  of   the  government’s  consistent  opposition  to   openness  and accountability   as  a  framework   within  which  both  that  charter  and  the accountability of  lawyers with respect  to  charging should be  looked  at. The government  has not  made Victorians aware of how much the scheme will cost, and that is a substantial point.

We know that the  Law Institute of Victoria has said that it  lacks the funds to help contribute to the reforms, and the government  says that the scheme will be paid for  out of the Public  Purpose Fund. Victoria Legal Aid  is already in the middle of a crisis in funding, and the decision of the government to pay for its scheme by dipping into the same fund will in  my view do nothing, to improve the situation.

The  bill  goes  some  way  towards achieving uniformity and any  step  in  that direction in areas where there is  duplication  of regulation simply for its own purpose or  simply for  parochial objectives is a good thing. It advances us  in the right direction, and I support it.