HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Legal Practitioners (Foreign Lawyers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2019.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:14): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. I rise to speak briefly to the Legal Practitioners (Foreign Lawyers) Amendment Bill 2019. I have to indicate that Labor will be reserving our position on the bill until it reaches the other place. We are minded to support the legislation, but we will be conducting further consultation on the bill. Our support will be subject to the outcome of that consultation.

The intention of this bill is to create a regulatory regime for foreign lawyers practising foreign law in South Australia. We have not been able to identify exactly how many such foreign lawyers are practising foreign law in South Australia or, indeed, whether there are any at all who are doing that work in South Australia. Hence, we do wonder why this legislation is needed and whether it is merely a matter of trying to fill up the relatively slight legislative agenda of the government.

Are there numbers of roaming foreign lawyers providing foreign legal advice on the streets of Adelaide or regional centres that we are not aware of? Are they acting without care or principle? Or possibly more seriously, are they causing havoc in the community? The bill seems like a bureaucratic fix to a problem we may not have. It feels like the sort of bill you introduce when you have run out of ideas and are looking for the filler to get to the end of the year and soak up a bit of parliamentary time.

We had a briefing from the Attorney-General's Department. They were unable to answer a number of questions that we had in that briefing session. The questions included what the rationale was behind the push to regulate foreign lawyers, which is a pretty essential question really; what the application fee for registration as a foreign lawyer would be; and under what circumstances would the Law Society exempt a foreign lawyer from provisions under this bill.

A meeting has been sought with the Law Society to clarify these and other matters. We understand from the word from the Attorney-General's office and her department that the Law Society is supportive of this and received some correspondence to date on that. However, we are of the understanding that previously the Law Society was against going down this road and against this sort of regulation when legislation was previously discussed in both houses of parliament in regard to the registration of lawyers. I think, therefore, a responsible opposition would go through the process of trying to find out the rationale behind that.

The bill also makes amendments relating to trustee companies. As the Attorney-General outlined in her second reading, an issue has been identified that means that trustee companies are regulated under both the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 and the commonwealth Corporations Act. These amendments remove trustee companies from the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 so that they are only regulated under the commonwealth act.

We sought assurances, which we were provided in our briefing, that this would ensure that there would be no gap in terms of the regulation of these practitioners or these workers and that they would definitely fall under the regulations of the Corporations Act. In fact, the advice that we have been provided is that these provisions may already be overruled under the constitution by the commonwealth covering the field in relation to the Corporations Act.

The government has filed a late amendment, unfortunately. Unfortunately, this is par for the course regarding how this government has conducted its business in this house—late amendments, incomplete briefings, the usual mess that we have become accustomed to. I am advised that the effect of the amendment is to allow the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner to claim the costs of costs assessment in an overcharging complaint from the legal practitioner who is the subject of the complaint in cases where the complaint is upheld.

We are consulting on this amendment. This is not something that we had a prior copy of until it was given to us. There was some mention that something would be coming, but it was given to us very late. Therefore, we need to consult on it. We need to go through our caucus and shadow cabinet consideration of it and, therefore, we will have to as well defer our consideration of that until the other place.

With those words, I again indicate that Labor will be reserving our position on the bill. We are inclined to support it; however, that will be subject to the ongoing consultation we will be conducting in the coming days and weeks in relation to this bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:20): I thank the member for Kaurna for indicating his position on this matter on behalf of the opposition. Whilst he gives an indication that they will be supportive and that they will be reserving their position on the matter on the basis that they seek to undertake further consultation, it is concerning to note the assertion that the government has failed to provide information on this matter.

Perhaps in committee the member might like to identify areas in which there has been a failure to provide that information, and we will certainly attempt to close the gap on any matters about which he feels there has been either no or inadequate information provided. If it is a new request, then of course we may need to take it on notice. I urge the member to have a good look at what the Law Society has said about this matter. He asserts that on his understanding the Law Society had previously opposed such a move.

I think what is clear from the Law Society's submission is that not only are they supportive of it but they outline the reasons why it is appropriate and important that we bring to account, and bring within the tent, persons who are practising as lawyers—even if it is of a foreign legal system—here in South Australia to ensure that there is compliance with the standard and protection afforded to the consumers, who of course are South Australians.

In the consultations that have taken place, again I have indicated to the parliament on previous occasions that, whilst there has been a practice of not disclosing correspondence or submissions received from in-house parties—that is, government and/or related stakeholders—I have been pleased to receive not only an indication of support but, importantly, a list of helpful recommendations from the Chief Justice to ensure that our regulatory regime is as best as it can be to enable that to be implemented. To the best of my knowledge, those recommendations have been incorporated in our consideration of the final draft which came to the parliament.

I place on record my appreciation to both the Law Society and the Chief Justice. The reason I particularly identify those two is not only because of their standing but because those two parties are the most significant in relation to the approval, admission and removal of legal practitioners in the state, together with all the regulatory obligations on a legal practitioner while they are in practice to comply under the supervision of the Law Society of South Australia.

The Supreme Court of South Australia and the Law Society of South Australia are the two groups in charge of ensuring that lawyers have a ticket to practise, that they are removed if they are not up to standard and that they comply with a regulatory regime that is designed to protect the consumer clients and maintain a status in the community of the profession generally to ensure that their advice is reliably given and of benefit to their clients. It is pleasing to have received that.

Can I just add one other matter, which I think is important, to be clear in this debate. South Australia is about to embark on one of its most significant eras of economic reform. I have no doubt about that because as a state we already are the beneficiaries of the opportunity to have the largest defence contract in history to undertake work for the commonwealth government. That contract has already been negotiated in respect of overseas parties in this venture. Many have heard of the Naval Group, a French consortium, that is very much a part of the ambitious contracts that we are about to fill as a state. The opportunity is enormous.

There are also significant British companies, for example. I will use one example, namely, the building of the submarines under the Australian Submarine Corporation, as they were then known, I think nearly 25 or 30 years ago now. I remember that Mr Hans Ohff from Germany was the head of the corporation that was very much involved in the design and early production to fulfil the contract. As complex and as huge as it seemed to be at the time, we now have a situation that makes that contract look like just a minor part of our history in relation to defence contracts.

In fact, I had the pleasure on the weekend of flying over Osborne to see the big new sheds being constructed with a view to developing these contracts. Having this opportunity in the new regime of work to be undertaken is extremely exciting. Part of that means that, if we are going to join with other international companies that are based in other countries and have all the complexity that goes with the implementation of those contracts, one of the things we need to do is have the legal world sit side by side to work on these projects—whether it be subcontractors, whether it be the government, whether it be other parties who are involved in this area—and make sure that the parties are able to do that immediately.

It is one thing to have them sitting on the other side of the world. It is another thing to be able to bring them here and say, 'Well, we want you to work side by side here in Adelaide with our legal teams to make sure that we have immediate understanding and transfer of information about what is going on so that everyone understands what the issues are, so that as the tasks come in, as the questions arise, as the challenges are raised, we can immediately deal with them.'

It can be done electronically. One can of course send emails to Paris, and it can be done with videoconferencing, etc., but we want to have a highly responsive, 21st century legal capacity in dealing with these contracts. That is just one. I think it is fair to say that even the opposition, those who have been in government, would appreciate that in so many other areas of our working operations now we are dealing with international companies.

Water, for example, really for the last 30 or 40 years has been very much undertaken by, again, French, English and other international companies that have been contracted by many governments around the country to clean, plumb and maintain water supply in urban areas. This has just been transformational, and we need to continue to maintain a high standard. It is going to continue to mean interaction with technology advancement and innovation from those other countries that are world leaders in this area, and we need to be ahead of the game. Our new state government wants to make sure that we are able to provide all the legal and other services that go with it.

The question of other disciplines, how we might introduce a 21st  century approach to the provision of economic advice and accounting advice and whether we have multidisciplinary capacity in our state are all questions we need to ask. Why? Because that is what is required for a 21st century commercial operation. We need to be able to have competent, responsive, comprehensive advice in all manner of areas, and the days of being able to just move along at a snail's pace and get a report on this and then get another report on that are just not competitive anymore.

We need to get up to strength. Other states have done this. This is not some unique push by having a regulation regime being proposed for foreign lawyers operating in our midst. Other states have already done this, and we need to be up to speed. It is the intention of this government that we must prepare in every way a skilled workforce for future opportunities for our children, with competent resource and infrastructure to support these ventures to ensure not only that they continue but also that we sign them up again and again and create an ongoing pipeline of work for the future.

Cybersecurity and space are whole new areas. In fact, at the end of this week I will be signing with other attorneys-general around the country an intergovernmental agreement to deal with the maritime position of our laws, which accommodate, as best I can see at this stage, a change of boundary in relation to the Timor-Leste position of its boundaries, and that relates to some gas agreements, etc., and the laws that are to apply within these jurisdictions.

That whole issue of if you are in certain waters whose jurisdiction you are in is important at an international level. It is important that we have an understanding at a national level about how that applies, and we are all signing to it. It made me think of the significance of what we need to do when it comes to the jurisdictional question of where a crime is committed and who should make the decision on it if it occurs on a space station in our atmosphere.

People already live out there. They live out there for six months at a time and crime is committed. It is just one other area we have to keep thinking about how we are going to address and how we are going to accommodate the challenges of today. However, there are more coming, and we cannot just sit here with our head in the sand in South Australia and coast along as we have and think that everything is going to be rosy. It is not. We do need to address these issues, and I for one am proud to be part of a government that is prepared to do that.

I should say that at this point I suppose I am optimistic that the opposition will see the benefit of South Australia being able to be part of this structure that other states enjoy within the national structure. We, too, want to participate in that, and we understand the significance of making sure that if other legal people from around the world are here we need to make sure they are in a position of being scrutinised—not in exactly the same way as lawyers are in South Australia; it is a slightly different set of circumstances—that they are up to a certain standard, that there is a capacity to deal with them if they fail South Australians and that some action can be taken.

That is why is it important that we do this, and it is important that we do it before we have a legacy of failings in this area. There will be a local registration proposal under this scheme, and I am happy to go into the details of that in committee. Otherwise, I seek that the bill be now put to be read a second time.

Bill read second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 3, line 4—After 'Foreign Lawyers' insert:

and Other Matters

This is an amendment to the short title of the bill. Parliamentary counsel advised that, as there are several miscellaneous amendments included in this bill alongside the foreign lawyer provisions, the short title should be amended to better reflect the contents of the bill. Unlike our three-day debate on clause 1 on the land tax bill, where there had been the scripture of miscellaneous, you will note that I am note seeking to add in the word 'miscellaneous'. I use 'miscellaneous' in a general way to say that these are other smaller matters and not things that need to be treated at the same status as the basis upon which you would have 'miscellaneous' in the title. I hope that is clear.

Mr PICTON: I was not going to comment but, now provoked, I will. I am happy to support this. I know a lot more now about the naming conventions of bills than I used to. It is interesting that this now is not referred to as a 'miscellaneous' bill, but it covers a whole range of things, but is other things as well as the main thing it is. Dare I say it, that would have been a more appropriate way of dealing with another bill we have debated recently.

Amendment carried.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General give the house a thorough and accurate description of the views of the Supreme Court Chief Justice in relation to this legislation and any recommendations he gave in relation to this legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would hope that I always give an accurate response to any request to identify what a stakeholder had said. Whilst I do not propose to breach the convention by making provision of the material from the Chief Justice, I would like to indicate that there are a couple of areas where, in his submission back in January 2019, when he had the draft, he took the view that some change needed to be made, which change was not adopted.

I will identify those three items. One was that, in relation to the summary procedure for the delivery up of papers held by foreign lawyers, he said:

First, I accept that there are sound reasons for enacting a summary procedure for the delivery up of papers held by foreign lawyers who provide services to South Australian residents. I therefore see no reason not to extend the reach of section 39 of the LP Act [Legal Practitioners Act] to foreign lawyers.

On the other hand I see no point in extending s 40 of the LP Act which empowers the Court to authorise local legal practitioners to act for clients of unsound mind to foreign lawyers. The very premise of the registration of foreign lawyers is that they are not practicing Australian law. It follows that a foreign lawyer cannot affect his or her client's rights under Australian law. Whether or not a foreign lawyer can act effectively for a client of unsound mind, in accordance with the law of another place, is a matter for the law of that place.

On the advice that we received, it was appropriate to extend section 40 of the LP Act to deal with that matter. Secondly, he says:

I see some difficulty in extending s 50 of the LP Act to Australian-registered foreign lawyers. Whether or not the personal representative is entitled, as a matter of the law of the foreign jurisdiction to conduct the foreign legal practice may be a difficult question. There may be a conflict between an order the Court might make under s 50 of the LP Act and the law of the foreign jurisdiction.

In that case, we did agree and that was taken out, so that was a matter of agreement. In the second matter, we had not agreed. He says:

Item 14 of the proposed Schedule 1A addresses professional indemnity insurance. It seems to me to be totally unsatisfactory. The $1.5m is presumably based on membership of a Professional Standards Scheme. I understand that there is no current appropriate approved scheme. Further, there is no obvious consequence for non-compliance—or remedy for a client. Whether a foreign lawyer should be able to take out professional indemnity insurance within the legal practitioners' scheme is a matter on which Law Claims and their underwriters should be consulted.

I can say, in relation to that issue, we did consider that matter extensively, took into account all the other states that have a $1.5 million provision and, to be consistent with those other states, have maintained that position. Those are the two areas in which the Chief Justice provided advice—not the second one that I referred to because, on rereading it, it was only an agreed point. But on those two points, firstly in relation to the application of extending section 40, we think that is valid, and in relation to the provisions for part 14 it was really important on the advice we had to be consistent with the other states in relation to the threshold amount of $1.5 million.

As I say, we are indebted to both the Law Society of South Australia and the Chief Justice, who are the chief regulators in relation to legal practitioners, if I can put it in that way. There are many other processes to deal with individual defalcation such as Mr May, who is now the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. He also provided some helpful advice in amendments to the draft that was given. Others simply made comment as practitioners.

The Legal Service Commission did not have any issue with what was proposed but made the point that they were not really engaged very much with foreign lawyers, other than in child abduction and family law cases, in which I have been involved myself in the past, where we did need to introduce the application of the Hague convention and be able to return Australian children to us where we had reciprocity with other countries and so when dealing with foreign lawyers, dealing with translations of evidence, dealing with marriage certificates, birth certificates—all those things that are in foreign languages that need to be translated into English—we needed the services of legal practitioners in other countries.

Some of these cases are quite easy in other English-speaking countries, such as the United States. I can remember having to take action in relation to a child who had been taken to California. It is easy in a way if it is in the United States or England, for example, but much more complex if it is in a country in which English is not the first language and even more difficult, of course, and not available if they are in a country that is not a signatory to the Hague convention.

We are used to dealing with foreign lawyers in those types of matters, and the Legal Services Commission here indicate to us that that is really the only area in which they touch upon this concerning custody of children. Sometimes it relates to property held overseas on those matters; otherwise, they point out that it is really a matter for the Law Society to determine whether insurance should be held, what scheme they should be in, etc., so that is a matter that they have left to them.

I think apart from the Chief Magistrate, there was no-one else I have already referred to who even responded. I know it is not something you would call a barbecue stopper in relation to what is important to the general population. Probably most of them hope that they never see a lawyer at all, let alone a foreign lawyer; nevertheless, it is important for us in this parliament to ensure that we set a standard and that it is kept.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Attorney-General has any estimate of how many foreign lawyers would be captured under this legislation in South Australia.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is part of the problem: we do not have an estimate of who is here. I know of several who are qualified in jurisdictions in other countries but have since sought and obtained qualifications under Australian law to practise Australian law, so they have qualifications in both. There are only a couple I can think of presently. One is a barrister who resides in South Australia and has his chambers in the Inns of Court in London; in fact, I think they are in Keating Chambers, from memory, a name that would be familiar to the opposition. Occasionally, we have that situation.

Mr Picton: But he would not be in this.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, he is admitted here already under Australian law and practises here in building disputes or something. In any event, that is the type of situation that we are aware of, but only because they come up against the Australian legal obligations. I have had working with me in practice and at the bar a young practitioner attorney from the United States who wanted to be able to be at the bar here in Australia.

He had to do a year as part of the qualification to be able to practise as an attorney, in his words, but really as a barrister in South Australia. He had to trot around with me for a year, ostensibly learn things and satisfy the Supreme Court that he was able to be admitted for the purpose of doing law here. There are various hybrids of that, but those who simply do other law are hidden from view because they do not fit into our system at all. We do not have any oversight over them; therefore, it will help to redress this if this legislation is passed.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline who identified the need for this amendment and what conditions could be imposed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 7 is incorporated in response to a matter raised by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, Mr May. As I indicated, he had written to indicate a number of helpful additions to this law. This relates to the imposition of conditions on a practising certificate that is then granted to an applicant under this regime, an Australian lawyer. One of the things he raised with us was that at present the imposition of conditions arises out of a determination on whether somebody is a fit and proper person. Presumably, if they are not up to standard, conditions are imposed.

He was of the view that conditions ought to be imposed at the first instance—if I can describe it like that—that is, without making a finding in relation to whether or not they are a fit and proper person. This sets out the refusal, amendment, suspension or cancellation of a practising certificate under the failure to show cause and hence he has recommended this. He points out that this is a bit of a circular situation. You want to make sure there are conditions that apply without having to wait until there is an assessment of whether or not someone is a fit and proper person.

Mr PICTON: Just to clarify, my understanding is that this applies to all lawyers, not just foreign lawyers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is one of the 'other matters', which is Australian lawyers.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline why the government has made the decision to specify this category of foreign lawyer as requiring Supreme Court approval?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This provision applies to Australian lawyers and foreign lawyers. The current section 49 already has this regime for Australian lawyers, so when the member views it he will see it proposes to delete subsection (1) and substitute this new provision, which will be for both a legal practitioner, which is us—that is, Australians—or Australia-registered foreign lawyers. It is simply replacing the section that is already there for Australian lawyers and making it applicable for foreign lawyers.

It essentially relates to a circumstance where either an Australian lawyer or an Australian-based foreign lawyer is operating as an incorporated legal practice. Currently, Australian lawyers need to go to the Supreme Court to get permission to continue to practise in a circumstance where they might be being wound up, for example, or they are not supposed to continue to trade. By this amendment, we are saying that that same obligation needs to apply to any Australia-based foreign lawyer. If they do not, then they are subject to the risk of conviction and a penalty of up to $10,000.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

New clause 14A.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 8, after line 24—After clause 14 insert:

14A—Amendment of section 77N—Investigation of allegation of overcharging

Section 77N(10)—after paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) the costs of any assessment undertaken by a legal practitioner under subsection (4)(b) for the purposes of investigating the complaint are recoverable from the legal practitioner or former legal practitioner as a debt due to the Commissioner.

This is an amendment that was requested by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner at the time the recent Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2019 was being debated in this parliament. There was not an opportunity to include this amendment in that amendment act, so we are taking the opportunity to include it in this bill.

The amendment allows the commissioner to recover the costs of a court assessment undertaken in a successful overcharging complaint from the legal practitioner who is the subject of the complaint. There is already a very similar provision in section 77N to allow the commissioner to recover fees associated with a successful overcharging complaint from a legal practitioner. This amendment extends that liability to the cost assessment, which is not a fee but a disbursement. It is not for work done by the lawyer but for the costs incurred—not the hourly rate, for example, but the photocopying charge, if I can give that as an example. That is its purpose and it is at the request of the commissioner.

New clause inserted.

Clause 15.

Mr PICTON: In regard to part 4, proposed clause 20, what form will the application make and what will the fees be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The proposal here is:

(1) An application for grant or renewal of registration as a foreign lawyer must be—

(a) made in the approved form; and

(b) accompanied by the prescribed fees.

Obviously, no form has been prepared yet because we have not done the regulations to this without presuming what the parliament might decide on the primary act, of course. I think the member is experienced enough in this place to know that there are frequently regulations that follow acts of parliament if they are passed by both houses. Once that has occurred, a set of rules is then promulgated for consideration, and they usually include in that what is to be in a form. It is often made available both electronically and in print so that there can be a universal, consistent set of information in its same format provided for record keeping.

Hopefully, by the time any of this legislation gets through we will have already established the capacity for electronic lodgement of those, which I am hopeful will be available in the civil jurisdiction by early next year and within 12 months in the criminal jurisdiction in our state courts, which will be excellent.

As to the 'accompanied by the prescribed fees', these will be fees that are set not by government but by the Law Society, because they are the regulating body. I am advised that the amount for these cannot exceed the amount of the practising certificate fee. Under proposed clause 20(2), the fees are not to be greater than the maximum fees for a practising certificate. The member might be quite reassured to know that the Law Society cannot just charge whatever it likes in relation to the fees for a practising certificate. In fact, I only learned once I became Attorney-General that I actually have to approve the Law Society changing the practising certificate.

Mr Picton: Was there something you didn't know? I am shocked.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Absolutely. I remember a memo coming to me to ask me to approve or not a request by the Law Society to increase practising certificate fees. I thought, 'Why am I doing this?' They said, 'Because under the statute you actually have to approve it.' There you go. I am sure you are reassured by that. This is a restriction that the prescribed fee for an application cannot be higher than the practising fee, but they do not set the practising certificate fees without the Attorney-General's approval, so there is a watchdog on that—that is me.

I have been pretty strict about this so far. I must say that in 18 months I have only been asked to do it once, and I have approved an increase—not as much as the Law Society wanted, I might say, but nevertheless an increase on the advice that I had received. I hope that covers the matter for the member.

Mr PICTON: I have another question in relation to part 11, proposed clause 51. Under what circumstances and for what reason would the Law Society exempt a foreign lawyer from compliance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The response, I am advised, is that this exemption capacity—that is, for the society to be able to exempt an Australian registered foreign lawyer or a class of them from being exempt—is in the model bill provisions. It has not been introduced as something that anticipates that there would be a particular class or person who might be deserved of exemption. However, in the model bill provisions, which of course apply in other states, this is just a capacity to be able to make that call.

Obviously we do not yet have it in South Australia, but I am advised—I do not personally know of any examples whereby there has been an exemption. I would hazard a guess that it might apply in a situation where a company—say, Naval Group—were to sponsor French lawyers to come to Australia and they would provide an underwriting in relation to any advice, that would obviate the need for them to be in the scheme. In other words, if Naval Group would be taking responsibility for being self-insured, I suppose, like big companies do, then that may be a possibility. I am really just hazarding a guess.

To ensure that it covers a contingency, I think this has been seen to be beneficial in the model bill; therefore, it may apply there. There may also be a situation where an individual says, 'Well, I will place funds in an account to cover any liability,' that satisfies the society and they are not required to be part of an insurance fund.

We do not always know about the terms and conditions of the insurance obligations that lawyers would have in their country of origin. If there was any restriction on them being insured by other parties, or an obligation to first claim to other parties, there may be some complication. In essence, it is there to, I suppose, be a pressure cooker valve to deal with any unforeseen circumstances like that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 to 18) passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 33, after line 31—After clause 18 insert:

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Transitional provision

Section 77N of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 as amended by this Act applies in relation to a complaint of overcharging received by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after the commencement of the amendment irrespective of whether the final bill to which the complaint relates was delivered to the client before or after that commencement.

This amendment provides for a transitional provision for the amendment to section 77N. We have employed the same policy as the previous Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2019, which also amended section 77N, and applied the new provision to all new complaints received after the section commences, irrespective of whether the final bill was received by the client before or after the commencement of the section.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT