Alex White (Labour)

Unlike my colleague, Senator Walsh, I do not have a difficulty with elevating the necessity for tax compliance to the level it is in legislation. It is important that all public officials are tax compliant, that they are seen to be tax compliant and can certify themselves as tax compliant. I would not exclude a member of the Judiciary from such a requirement. It is a novel suggestion that while a tax clearance certificate should be required of people across the public service, politicians and others - perhaps members of the Judiciary - ought not to be required to do so. They should, just the same as everybody else.

To some extent, the Bill is a bit of a dolly mixture. I counted 30 pieces of legislation, and I may have counted one or two twice, which it is proposed to amend on foot of the Bill. I do not know whether this is unprecedented, but it is a long list to be amended by one Bill. I understand the rationale in most cases because many of the amendments proposed, as the Minister of State fairly stated, are, to use the phrase, "minor and technical". However, one person's minor and technical amendment is another person's federal case, as we have often seen. Something that looks technical may be of fundamental importance.

I take the point made by the Minister of State that some of the amendments proposed to the Equal Status Act — with which I am familiar from practice — the Succession Act and the Bankruptcy Act seem to be quite technical in nature and it would not be appropriate to have the infrastructure of an amendment Bill in this context in each case. It is probably appropriate that it is done in this way. I am not sure about other areas. Relatively substantial amendments are proposed in the areas of video recordings and censorship. On reading them, I wonder — rather than being definitive about it — whether it would have been more appropriate to introduce an amendment Bill under the rubric of the original legislation.

Much of what is in the Bill is reasonable and to be welcomed and will probably win the support of the House. The Bill contains a number of amending provisions which seek to improve the efficiency of the Courts Service. This is good and it is important to remind ourselves that the Courts Service is a public service. When all is said and done about the trappings of the law, whether it is the wigs and gowns or the mystique about lawyers, in some cases a mystique prolonged by the profession itself without much justification, the Courts Service is a service to the citizen. Like any other service it should be accessible, efficient and professional.

To the extent the Bill seeks to improve the efficiency and accessibility of the Courts Service I welcome it. The change to a professionalised body such as the Courts Service has been a great achievement in recent years. Those of us who are practitioners in the system have all seen it. I think and hope users of the system and the service also see it is a more professional and accessible service.

I heard what Senator Walsh stated and I am sorry he is not here to hear my response. There is no question that lawyers in particular constitute an easy target, whether with regard to fees or complaints against the profession. The legal ombudsman Bill will be dealt with separately and this is a good idea. When abuses are reported publicly and we have the shocking things we have seen happen, the call goes out for independent regulation. It may be in this day and age it is right that all professions should have a measure of independent or outside regulation.

However, I counsel against people thinking that some of the more outrageous abuses we saw in recent weeks and months can ever be removed or dealt with simply by having an element of independent regulation of the professions. If somebody makes off with clients' money or engages in what is effectively theft in his or her practice it does not matter whether we have independent regulation or regulation by the profession itself. In some cases these are criminal offences and are serious abuses. They ought not to, could not and would never be tolerated under any circumstances. The notion of how it is regulated and whether the complaints system should be fully managed within the profession or done independently will not deal with bad people or lawyers. Whether the sanction is imposed by and the matter is regulated by an independent body will not necessarily solve this. This is put out as a panacea and we must be careful.

One of the disadvantages of coming towards the end of a debate is that many of the issues one wants to raise have already been raised by colleagues. One of the advantages is that one has the opportunity to respond to some of the points made with which one disagrees. I again regret the fact that Senator Walsh is not here for me to respond in this way.