Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 September 2016.)

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:04): The Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 seeks to amend the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 to address concerns raised by the Law Society about the ability of incorporated legal practices to practise in partnership, and concerns raised by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner about the operation of division 6 of the act. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan has asked for further information about the proposed amendment to section 89C of the act, which gives the commissioner the power to cause information about disciplinary action to be removed from the Register of Disciplinary Action in the circumstances prescribed by regulation.

The content of the regulations has not been determined at this stage, and will require consultation with the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. However, it is likely that the regulations will need to allow the commissioner to remove the name of a legal practitioner who has been included on the register under the proposed amendment to section 89B who is then found not guilty of misconduct. Currently, section 89C allows the commissioner to correct an error or omission in the register but does not allow the commissioner to remove disciplinary action from the register unless the action is quashed on appeal or review. I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I just want to seek some clarification regarding the answer at the end of the second reading; it does not reflect on proposing any amendments to the bill. The amendment in relation to taking information off is 'in accordance with regulations'. What I am looking for is: what are the circumstances that the government is envisaging regulating? The government may say it has not envisaged those things in regulation yet, and I would probably accept that answer, but is it taking off the details of the particular matter? Is that what is envisaged? For example, a complaint is made but it is not quashed, but it is a minor matter that has been there for some time and therefore they are going to take it off. I am really looking at the sorts of circumstances being envisaged, whilst not necessarily binding the government to a particular set of regulations.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government has not made any sort of determination as yet. It would need to consult before developing any regulations, but I have been advised that should specific recommendations take place, there would be an intention to remove the name of the relevant person.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Thank you; I do not have any further questions. The Liberal Party will support the passage of the bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 21) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.